Milizia v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Mount Vernon City Court

Milizia v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

95 Misc. 2d 358, 407 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2429

CourtMount Vernon City Court

DecidedJuly 21, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 Misc. 2d 358 (Milizia v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mount Vernon City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Milizia v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 95 Misc. 2d 358, 407 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2429 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Irving B. Kendall, J.

The plaintiff was injured while working on a machine powered by electricity. He claims that the defendant reduced the electrical power it was furnishing to his employer without advance notice to his employer and that the reduction in power resulted in a malfunctioning of the machine on which he was working and the severing of his fingertips.

The defendant, citing Shubitz v Con Edison Co. of N. Y. (59 Misc 2d 732), and Beck v FMC Corp. (53 AD2d 118, affd 42 NY2d 1027), claims that its failure to notify the employer of a reduction in service was not the commission of a wrong to [359]*359plaintiff but a denial of a benefit to plaintiff’s employer with whom they had contracted to furnish electrical power and that a contrary holding would subject the defendant to a multitude of suits for damages not foreseeable at the time the contract was made.

I firmly believe that there are issues of fact in this case which merit their determination by a jury, namely, (1) whether the defendant had in fact agreed to notify the plaintiff’s employer before it reduced service, (2) whether they did notify the employer, (3) whether the plaintiff suffered an injury, (4) whether the proximate cause of that injury was the failure by defendant to give advance notice, (5) whether the machinery on which the plaintiff was working did in fact malfunction because of a loss in power, (6) whether it could have malfunctioned and caused the injury to plaintiff whether the power was reduced or not and (7) whether the defendant could reasonably foresee that such an injury could happen to an employee of its customer at the time it agreed to supply electric power.

I find that the defendant owes a legal duty to an employee of its customers who works the machines to which the defendant supplies electric power to use reasonable care to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to such employee occasioned by a failure of electrical power over which they have control.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Irving B. Kendall, J.

The plaintiff was injured while working on a machine powered by electricity. He claims that the defendant reduced the electrical power it was furnishing to his employer without advance notice to his employer and that the reduction in power resulted in a malfunctioning of the machine on which he was working and the severing of his fingertips.

The defendant, citing Shubitz v Con Edison Co. of N. Y. (59 Misc 2d 732), and Beck v FMC Corp. (53 AD2d 118, affd 42 NY2d 1027), claims that its failure to notify the employer of a reduction in service was not the commission of a wrong to [359]*359plaintiff but a denial of a benefit to plaintiff’s employer with whom they had contracted to furnish electrical power and that a contrary holding would subject the defendant to a multitude of suits for damages not foreseeable at the time the contract was made.

I firmly believe that there are issues of fact in this case which merit their determination by a jury, namely, (1) whether the defendant had in fact agreed to notify the plaintiff’s employer before it reduced service, (2) whether they did notify the employer, (3) whether the plaintiff suffered an injury, (4) whether the proximate cause of that injury was the failure by defendant to give advance notice, (5) whether the machinery on which the plaintiff was working did in fact malfunction because of a loss in power, (6) whether it could have malfunctioned and caused the injury to plaintiff whether the power was reduced or not and (7) whether the defendant could reasonably foresee that such an injury could happen to an employee of its customer at the time it agreed to supply electric power.

I find that the defendant owes a legal duty to an employee of its customers who works the machines to which the defendant supplies electric power to use reasonable care to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to such employee occasioned by a failure of electrical power over which they have control.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 Misc. 2d 358, 407 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milizia-v-consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-nymtverncityct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack