Hudson v. Brookfield Construction Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Hudson v. Brookfield Construction Co.

248 N.E.2d 445, 24 N.Y.2d 811, 300 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1432

DecidedApril 9, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 248 N.E.2d 445 (Hudson v. Brookfield Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hudson v. Brookfield Construction Co., 248 N.E.2d 445, 24 N.Y.2d 811, 300 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1432 (N.Y. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Soileppi, Bergan and Jasen. Judges Burke, Keating and Bkeitel dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum: Plaintiff’s work was not concerned with the use or correction of the hazardous condition which caused the accident. Hence, the rule of the Kowalsky case (264 N. Y. 125) is not applicable. There was, therefore, an issue of fact to submit to the jury.

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

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Soileppi, Bergan and Jasen. Judges Burke, Keating and Bkeitel dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum: Plaintiff’s work was not concerned with the use or correction of the hazardous condition which caused the accident. Hence, the rule of the Kowalsky case (264 N. Y. 125) is not applicable. There was, therefore, an issue of fact to submit to the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 N.E.2d 445, 24 N.Y.2d 811, 300 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-brookfield-construction-co-ny-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack