Seidman v. M & R Air Conditioning Corp.
205 N.E.2d 859, 15 N.Y.2d 814, 257 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1589
Opinion
Order reversed, with costs in all courts, and complaint dismissed upon the ground that plaintiff’s failure to shut off the power on the air conditioning machine before attempting to replace the compressor belt was so careless as to amount to contributory negligence as a matter of law (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Amsterdam Color Works, 284 App. Div. 376, affd. 308 N. Y. 816).
Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bergan.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Seidman v. M & R Air Conditioning Corp., 205 N.E.2d 859, 15 N.Y.2d 814, 257 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1589 (N.Y. 1965).
205 N.E.2d 859 (Seidman v. M & R Air Conditioning Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Shorr v. Cohen Bros. Realty & Construction Corp.
490 N.E.2d 543 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Humphries v. Consolidated Edison Co.
314 F. Supp. 1052 (S.D. New York, 1969)