Shramko v. Hills Wrecking Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shramko v. Hills Wrecking Corp.

52 A.D.2d 523, 381 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12050

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

DecidedApril 1, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 523 (Shramko v. Hills Wrecking Corp.) 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

Shramko v. Hills Wrecking Corp., 52 A.D.2d 523, 381 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 30, 1975, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded for trial anew, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. Plaintiff-respondent was a building inspector who was injured in premises said to have been under demolition. Whether that work had actually been commenced was a factual issue, the determination of which would have been a factor in attaching liability to defendant-appellant. There was also a question as to whether defendant’s employee was negligent in bringing plaintiff into the structure. These questions never went to the jury, the court having cut the trial short on a showing of some industrial code violations allegedly committed by defendant, and directing a verdict for plaintiff on liability. This was error. (See Conte v Large Scale Development Corp., 10 NY2d 20.) A new trial is therefore required. Plaintiff-appellant wife filed a notice of appeal from dismissal of her derivative cause, but this was the last mention made of that appeal; it was neither briefed, argued, nor otherwise pursued. It is deemed abandoned. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 30, 1975, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded for trial anew, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. Plaintiff-respondent was a building inspector who was injured in premises said to have been under demolition. Whether that work had actually been commenced was a factual issue, the determination of which would have been a factor in attaching liability to defendant-appellant. There was also a question as to whether defendant’s employee was negligent in bringing plaintiff into the structure. These questions never went to the jury, the court having cut the trial short on a showing of some industrial code violations allegedly committed by defendant, and directing a verdict for plaintiff on liability. This was error. (See Conte v Large Scale Development Corp., 10 NY2d 20.) A new trial is therefore required. Plaintiff-appellant wife filed a notice of appeal from dismissal of her derivative cause, but this was the last mention made of that appeal; it was neither briefed, argued, nor otherwise pursued. It is deemed abandoned. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 523, 381 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shramko-v-hills-wrecking-corp-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack