Maeurer v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maeurer v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co.

198 A.D. 917

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1921·Published

Opinion

We see no occasion to interfere with the discretion of the court at Special Term [See 115 Misc. Rep. 70] in directing service of a bill of particulars of the affirmative defenses raised in the answer. (Havholm v. Whale Creek Iron Works, 159 App. Div. 578.) Plaintiff is not enforcing an exclusively maritime liability, but that of a servant against a land contractor as his direct employer (Maluskas v. Overseas Shipping Co., Inc., 197 App. Div. 224), where the State courts administer the law of New York applicable to workers on shore. The order is, therefore, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Blackmar, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Manning, JJ., concur.

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

We see no occasion to interfere with the discretion of the court at Special Term [See 115 Misc. Rep. 70] in directing service of a bill of particulars of the affirmative defenses raised in the answer. (Havholm v. Whale Creek Iron Works, 159 App. Div. 578.) Plaintiff is not enforcing an exclusively maritime liability, but that of a servant against a land contractor as his direct employer (Maluskas v. Overseas Shipping Co., Inc., 197 App. Div. 224), where the State courts administer the law of New York applicable to workers on shore. The order is, therefore, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Blackmar, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Manning, JJ., concur.

Maeurer v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 198 A.D. 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

198 A.D. 917 (Maeurer v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related