Sdoia v. Cawley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sdoia v. Cawley

263 A.D. 928, 32 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7398

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 A.D. 928 (Sdoia v. Cawley) 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

Sdoia v. Cawley, 263 A.D. 928, 32 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Crosby, P. J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for granting a new trial on the following grounds: (1) That the finding that defendant ever furnished the ladder to plaintiff is against the weight of the evidence. (2) That the plaintiff was an independent contractor and owed plaintiff only the duty not to furnish him a ladder known to defendant to be defective (it being a gratuitous bailment). (3) That there was error in the charge that defendant owed any higher duty. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a directed verdict.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and MeCurn, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Crosby, P. J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for granting a new trial on the following grounds: (1) That the finding that defendant ever furnished the ladder to plaintiff is against the weight of the evidence. (2) That the plaintiff was an independent contractor and owed plaintiff only the duty not to furnish him a ladder known to defendant to be defective (it being a gratuitous bailment). (3) That there was error in the charge that defendant owed any higher duty. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a directed verdict.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and MeCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 928, 32 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sdoia-v-cawley-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack