Jolles v. 3720 Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jolles v. 3720 Corp.

163 Misc. 51, 296 N.Y.S. 354, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1290

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 6, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 Misc. 51 (Jolles v. 3720 Corp.) 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

Jolles v. 3720 Corp., 163 Misc. 51, 296 N.Y.S. 354, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, a peddler, had been visiting the factory building maintained by defendant daily for months with the knowledge of defendant’s agents, for the purpose of selling food to employees of tenants. Under such circumstances, he would appear to be a licensee. He established prima facie that the elevator shaft into which he fell was maintained in violation of the provisions of section 255 of the Labor Law. Plaintiff, being lawfully in the building, was entitled to the benefit of the protection afforded by the statute. (Racine v. Morris, 201 N. Y. 240; McRickard v. Flint, 114 id. 222.) In the case of Stacy v. Shapiro (212 App. Div. 723), relied on by respondent, no violation of a statutory duty was involved.

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

All concur. Present — Levy, Hammer and Callahan, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, a peddler, had been visiting the factory building maintained by defendant daily for months with the knowledge of defendant’s agents, for the purpose of selling food to employees of tenants. Under such circumstances, he would appear to be a licensee. He established prima facie that the elevator shaft into which he fell was maintained in violation of the provisions of section 255 of the Labor Law. Plaintiff, being lawfully in the building, was entitled to the benefit of the protection afforded by the statute. (Racine v. Morris, 201 N. Y. 240; McRickard v. Flint, 114 id. 222.) In the case of Stacy v. Shapiro (212 App. Div. 723), relied on by respondent, no violation of a statutory duty was involved.

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

All concur. Present — Levy, Hammer and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 Misc. 51, 296 N.Y.S. 354, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jolles-v-3720-corp-nyappterm-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack