Riedell v. S. Karpen & Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Riedell v. S. Karpen & Bros.

266 A.D. 850, 42 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4874

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 1, 1943·Published

Opinion

[851] Close, P. J., Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs except as to the affirmance of the judgment against S. Iiarpen & Bros., the owner of the building, as to which he dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint as to said defendant on the ground that the installation of a light of glass in a ydndow by an independent contractor does not involve work which is inherently dangerous. In any event the injury did not occur by virtue of the nature of the work but in a detail thereof incidental to performance, for which the owner cannot be held responsible. (Hyman v. Barrett, 224 N. Y. 436; Wemfeld v. Kaplan, 282 N. Y. 348.)

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

[851] Close, P. J., Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs except as to the affirmance of the judgment against S. Iiarpen & Bros., the owner of the building, as to which he dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint as to said defendant on the ground that the installation of a light of glass in a ydndow by an independent contractor does not involve work which is inherently dangerous. In any event the injury did not occur by virtue of the nature of the work but in a detail thereof incidental to performance, for which the owner cannot be held responsible. (Hyman v. Barrett, 224 N. Y. 436; Wemfeld v. Kaplan, 282 N. Y. 348.)

Riedell v. S. Karpen & Bros., 266 A.D. 850, 42 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

266 A.D. 850 (Riedell v. S. Karpen & Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related