Hirschfield v. Salomone, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirschfield v. Salomone, Inc.

281 A.D. 987, 121 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4013

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 20, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 987 (Hirschfield v. Salomone, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hirschfield v. Salomone, Inc., 281 A.D. 987, 121 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff, an electrician employed by the electrical work subcontractor in the construction of an apartment house, brought this action, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in the course of his work, against the owner, which was acting as its own general contractor, and a subcontractor for the laying of the concrete doors. Judgment after trial was rendered in favor of plaintiff against both defendants, and in favor of the owner against the concrete work subcontractor on the owner’s cross complaint. The owner appeals from so much of the judgment as is directed against it, and the concrete work subcontractor appeals from the entire judgment. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondent against both appellants. No opinion. Present — Carswell, Acting’ P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ. [See 282 App. Div. 687.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiff, an electrician employed by the electrical work subcontractor in the construction of an apartment house, brought this action, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in the course of his work, against the owner, which was acting as its own general contractor, and a subcontractor for the laying of the concrete doors. Judgment after trial was rendered in favor of plaintiff against both defendants, and in favor of the owner against the concrete work subcontractor on the owner’s cross complaint. The owner appeals from so much of the judgment as is directed against it, and the concrete work subcontractor appeals from the entire judgment. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondent against both appellants. No opinion. Present — Carswell, Acting’ P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ. [See 282 App. Div. 687.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 987, 121 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschfield-v-salomone-inc-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack