Olivier v. Mantione Contracting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olivier v. Mantione Contracting Corp.

29 A.D.2d 535, 286 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2678

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 535 (Olivier v. Mantione Contracting Corp.) 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

Olivier v. Mantione Contracting Corp., 29 A.D.2d 535, 286 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on April 12,1967 in this personal injury action, after a jury trial on the issue of liability, affirmed insofar as it provides that defendant-appellant is liable to plaintiffs for damages to be determined by a jury, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. The jury’s verdict is amply supported by the record, which clearly demonstrates that the existence of a chase in the pier was not physically impossible. Quite to the contrary, the bricklayer who built the chase, Mr. Palmieri, testified to-the dimensions of the pipe, indicating that they were as set forth in the dissent, and stated that the chase was built “ to follow the contour of the pipe ”. Moreover, the pier was constructed so that it surrounded the pipe on only three sides. Concur — Botein, P. J., Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.; Tilzer and McNally, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum: We dissent and vote to order a new trial, on the ground the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. The physical facts demonstrate the impossibility of the existence of a chase in the pier. The castiron pipe, which was introduced into evidence, had an inside diameter of 4 inches with an outside diameter of 4y2 inches, along with a hub at the end of the pipe which measured 6% inches at the outer rim. It would be physically impossible to insert a castiron pipe of these dimensions into a chase which obviously was insufficient in size to accommodate it. Plaintiffs’ proof showed the chase to be 4 inches by 4 inches.

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

Order, entered on April 12,1967 in this personal injury action, after a jury trial on the issue of liability, affirmed insofar as it provides that defendant-appellant is liable to plaintiffs for damages to be determined by a jury, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. The jury’s verdict is amply supported by the record, which clearly demonstrates that the existence of a chase in the pier was not physically impossible. Quite to the contrary, the bricklayer who built the chase, Mr. Palmieri, testified to-the dimensions of the pipe, indicating that they were as set forth in the dissent, and stated that the chase was built “ to follow the contour of the pipe ”. Moreover, the pier was constructed so that it surrounded the pipe on only three sides. Concur — Botein, P. J., Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.; Tilzer and McNally, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum: We dissent and vote to order a new trial, on the ground the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. The physical facts demonstrate the impossibility of the existence of a chase in the pier. The castiron pipe, which was introduced into evidence, had an inside diameter of 4 inches with an outside diameter of 4y2 inches, along with a hub at the end of the pipe which measured 6% inches at the outer rim. It would be physically impossible to insert a castiron pipe of these dimensions into a chase which obviously was insufficient in size to accommodate it. Plaintiffs’ proof showed the chase to be 4 inches by 4 inches.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 535, 286 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olivier-v-mantione-contracting-corp-nyappdiv-1967.