Lafredo v. Baltic American Line, Inc.

244 A.D. 748
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 15, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D. 748 (Lafredo v. Baltic American Line, Inc.) 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
Lafredo v. Baltic American Line, Inc., 244 A.D. 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Opinion

It is unnecessary to review again the somewhat unusual procedure by which this appeal has reached this court. The question was settled on an earlier appeal (241 App. Div. 819). The action, once severed, may be restored to its original status as a matter of judicial discretion. After a trial in which the jury disagreed, the complaint was dismissed by the trial justice, on reserved motions, as to defendants Wilh Wilhelmsen and Baltic American Line, Inc. From the judgment subsequently entered thereon, this appeal is taken. We content ourselves with saying that plaintiff made a prima facie case of negligence against both defendants, who were occupying the pier or dock in question and in a large measure in control of the premises where the accident to plaintiff occurred. As to the defendant, Baltic American Line, Inc., there is nothing to indicate how often, how long and how exclusively it occupied the premises and the measure of its duty in providing a safe place to work for the stevedores loading or unloading its ships, for it offered no evidence on the trial. On the new trial it will have opportunity to offer such proof. The judgment dismissing the complaint is reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. The appeal of the defendant Wilh Wilhelmsen is dismissed. A prior appeal from the order dismissing its cross-complaint against [749]*749the codefendants was dismissed long ago (234 App. Div. 768). It is in no position to press this new appeal. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Tompkins, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Porter v. Avlis Contracting Corp.
86 Misc. 235 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 A.D. 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lafredo-v-baltic-american-line-inc-nyappdiv-1935.