Shinbaum v. Murphy

41 N.E.2d 85, 287 N.Y. 529, 1942 N.Y. LEXIS 1093

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think the courts below erred in declaring as an inference of law that the codefendant Murphy was the servant of the defendant-appellant Cross & Brown Company rather than an independent contractor. Whether the one relation or the other existed between them was a question for the jury. (See Fritz v. Krasne, 273 N. Y. 649; Irwin v. Klein, 271 N. Y. 477; Matter of Glielmi v. Netherland Dairy Co., 254 N. Y. 60.)

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur; Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J., taking no part.

Judgments reversed, etc.