Rosenberg v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Schwartz

236 A.D. 686

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

DecidedJune 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 686 (Rosenberg v. Schwartz) 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

Rosenberg v. Schwartz, 236 A.D. 686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Young, J., dissent upon the ground that the absence of the toe board, in violation of rule 1220, subdivision 2, of the Industrial Code, and the position of the mechanics while working on the scaffold would have justified an inference that the falling of the brick was due to respondent’s negligence.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Young, J., dissent upon the ground that the absence of the toe board, in violation of rule 1220, subdivision 2, of the Industrial Code, and the position of the mechanics while working on the scaffold would have justified an inference that the falling of the brick was due to respondent’s negligence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1931.