Hughes v. Alvord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hughes v. Alvord

55 A.D.2d 570, 389 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15254

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 570 (Hughes v. Alvord) 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

Hughes v. Alvord, 55 A.D.2d 570, 389 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Interlocutory judgment of liability in favor of plaintiff-respondent by order of the trial court, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 22, 1975, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded for a new trial, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. The action of the court in taking the case from the jury was improvident in the presence of issues of fact concerning the claim made against defendant-appellant that it failed to provide safe working conditions (Labor Law, § 240), as the result of which plaintiff-respondent was injured. Plaintiff’s expert was permitted to testify concerning a locking device he never saw; the workman who had knowledge of whether the device had been locked was never called to testify; and it was at least doubtful whether any rule of safety required rails on all four sides of the scaffold from which plaintiff fell. These developments during the trial are illustrative of the numerous issues of fact implicit in the evidence, and which should have barred a conclusion by the court that the evidence obviated the possibility of a defendant’s verdict. The case should have gone to the jury. Settle order on notice. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Birns, Silverman and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Interlocutory judgment of liability in favor of plaintiff-respondent by order of the trial court, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 22, 1975, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded for a new trial, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. The action of the court in taking the case from the jury was improvident in the presence of issues of fact concerning the claim made against defendant-appellant that it failed to provide safe working conditions (Labor Law, § 240), as the result of which plaintiff-respondent was injured. Plaintiff’s expert was permitted to testify concerning a locking device he never saw; the workman who had knowledge of whether the device had been locked was never called to testify; and it was at least doubtful whether any rule of safety required rails on all four sides of the scaffold from which plaintiff fell. These developments during the trial are illustrative of the numerous issues of fact implicit in the evidence, and which should have barred a conclusion by the court that the evidence obviated the possibility of a defendant’s verdict. The case should have gone to the jury. Settle order on notice. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Birns, Silverman and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 570, 389 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-alvord-nyappdiv-1976.