Meyerowitz v. Modern Metal Store Front Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyerowitz v. Modern Metal Store Front Co.

27 A.D.2d 747, 279 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4822

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 747 (Meyerowitz v. Modern Metal Store Front Co.) 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

Meyerowitz v. Modern Metal Store Front Co., 27 A.D.2d 747, 279 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 3, 1966, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with a single allowance of costs to respondents jointly, and with disbursements to each respondent separately. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., concurs in the affirmance with respect to respondent Modern Metal Store Front Co., Inc., but dissents from the affirmance with respect to respondents Samuel Zeluek and Plymouth Decorators and votes to reverse the judgment and to direct a new trial with respect to the two latter respondents, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the proof was sufficient to present a prima facie case that Samuel Zeluek, as owner of the premises and as a partner of Plymouth Decorators, failed to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work. The issues of constructive notice and contributory negligence were questions of fact for the jury (cf. Jackson v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 13 N Y 2d 112, 116; Hanson v. Bloomingdale Bros., 13 A D 2d 1007).

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 3, 1966, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with a single allowance of costs to respondents jointly, and with disbursements to each respondent separately. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., concurs in the affirmance with respect to respondent Modern Metal Store Front Co., Inc., but dissents from the affirmance with respect to respondents Samuel Zeluek and Plymouth Decorators and votes to reverse the judgment and to direct a new trial with respect to the two latter respondents, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the proof was sufficient to present a prima facie case that Samuel Zeluek, as owner of the premises and as a partner of Plymouth Decorators, failed to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work. The issues of constructive notice and contributory negligence were questions of fact for the jury (cf. Jackson v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 13 N Y 2d 112, 116; Hanson v. Bloomingdale Bros., 13 A D 2d 1007).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 747, 279 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyerowitz-v-modern-metal-store-front-co-nyappdiv-1967.