Interested Underwriters at Lloyds v. Associated Ceilings Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Interested Underwriters at Lloyds v. Associated Ceilings Corp.

430 N.E.2d 1307, 55 N.Y.2d 635, 446 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3222

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 430 N.E.2d 1307 (Interested Underwriters at Lloyds v. Associated Ceilings Corp.) 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

Interested Underwriters at Lloyds v. Associated Ceilings Corp., 430 N.E.2d 1307, 55 N.Y.2d 635, 446 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3222 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Our review of the scant record in this case fails to disclose prima facie proof that the defendant was in control of the damaged premises at the time the ceiling collapsed or that there was negligence in the performance of the [637]*637work. Specifically, the only testimony on the latter score came from Ralph Bank, the plaintiff’s subrogor’s president, who, disclaiming any personal knowledge on the subject, could recite no more than a hearsay conversation with Irving Buller, the president of the defendant, in which the latter, who was deceased by the time of the trial, in turn was said to have told Bank that unnamed “people that were involved in the demolition”, presumably ones other than the defendant, had not been aware of the fact that a wall they were removing supported the ceiling. Moreover, notably, there was no proof that these actions were negligent. In addition, without proof of control, an essential predicate for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was absent. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Our review of the scant record in this case fails to disclose prima facie proof that the defendant was in control of the damaged premises at the time the ceiling collapsed or that there was negligence in the performance of the [637]*637work. Specifically, the only testimony on the latter score came from Ralph Bank, the plaintiff’s subrogor’s president, who, disclaiming any personal knowledge on the subject, could recite no more than a hearsay conversation with Irving Buller, the president of the defendant, in which the latter, who was deceased by the time of the trial, in turn was said to have told Bank that unnamed “people that were involved in the demolition”, presumably ones other than the defendant, had not been aware of the fact that a wall they were removing supported the ceiling. Moreover, notably, there was no proof that these actions were negligent. In addition, without proof of control, an essential predicate for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was absent. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

430 N.E.2d 1307, 55 N.Y.2d 635, 446 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interested-underwriters-at-lloyds-v-associated-ceilings-corp-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack