Peters v. Meyerbank Electrical Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peters v. Meyerbank Electrical Co.

24 A.D.2d 740, 263 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3306

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 740 (Peters v. Meyerbank Electrical 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

Peters v. Meyerbank Electrical Co., 24 A.D.2d 740, 263 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in favor of plaintiff upon a jury verdict reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted as to both appellants, with $50 costs and disbursements [741]*741to abide the event. The record is unsatisfactory as to breach of duty by defendants to plaintiff. The mere breach by the defendants of a contractual obligation to the Board of Education to keep the passageways lighted is not alone sufficient to hold the contractors liable to the plaintiff. (De Clara v. Barber S. S. Lines, 309 N. Y. 620, 629; Cullings v. Goetz, 256 N. Y. 287.) The court’s charge in this respect did not adequately present to the jury the issues they were to decide. Moreover, the plethora of requests to charge by counsel engendered further confusion in the ultimate instructions received by the jury. Upon the new trial the actual participation of either appellant in lighting the passageway where plaintiff was injured, in failing to light it on the night of plaintiff’s injury, or in controlling or supervising such passageway prior to the time of the injury will he germane to the question of the responsibility of either of them to the plaintiff. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Eager and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment in favor of plaintiff upon a jury verdict reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted as to both appellants, with $50 costs and disbursements [741]*741to abide the event. The record is unsatisfactory as to breach of duty by defendants to plaintiff. The mere breach by the defendants of a contractual obligation to the Board of Education to keep the passageways lighted is not alone sufficient to hold the contractors liable to the plaintiff. (De Clara v. Barber S. S. Lines, 309 N. Y. 620, 629; Cullings v. Goetz, 256 N. Y. 287.) The court’s charge in this respect did not adequately present to the jury the issues they were to decide. Moreover, the plethora of requests to charge by counsel engendered further confusion in the ultimate instructions received by the jury. Upon the new trial the actual participation of either appellant in lighting the passageway where plaintiff was injured, in failing to light it on the night of plaintiff’s injury, or in controlling or supervising such passageway prior to the time of the injury will he germane to the question of the responsibility of either of them to the plaintiff. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Eager and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 740, 263 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-meyerbank-electrical-co-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack