Holzman v. Katzman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Holzman v. Katzman

84 N.Y.S. 250

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 250 (Holzman v. Katzman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holzman v. Katzman, 84 N.Y.S. 250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

Assuming the evidence of direction, supervision, and control sufficient to connect the owner of the building- in process of construction as common master of the employés of his codefendants who had agreed to do the mason work, there was neither proof nor contention of the application or violation of the provisions of the labor law (Laws 1897, p. 468, c. 415, § 20, as amended by Laws 1899, p. 351, c. 192), nor does the case disclose the cause of the fall of the bricks in consequence of which the plaintiff sustained his injuries. Under the decision of Van Orden v. Acken, 28 App. Div. 160, 50 N. Y. Supp. 843, the maxim res ipsa loquitur does not apply. The finding of fault on the part of the owner of the building being, therefore, without evidence to support it, the judgment and order below in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

Assuming the evidence of direction, supervision, and control sufficient to connect the owner of the building- in process of construction as common master of the employés of his codefendants who had agreed to do the mason work, there was neither proof nor contention of the application or violation of the provisions of the labor law (Laws 1897, p. 468, c. 415, § 20, as amended by Laws 1899, p. 351, c. 192), nor does the case disclose the cause of the fall of the bricks in consequence of which the plaintiff sustained his injuries. Under the decision of Van Orden v. Acken, 28 App. Div. 160, 50 N. Y. Supp. 843, the maxim res ipsa loquitur does not apply. The finding of fault on the part of the owner of the building being, therefore, without evidence to support it, the judgment and order below in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holzman-v-katzman-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack