Turner v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turner v. City of New York

249 A.D. 790, 292 N.Y.S. 375, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6017

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 790 (Turner v. City of New York) 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

Turner v. City of New York, 249 A.D. 790, 292 N.Y.S. 375, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff as a consequence of his falling over a beam claimed to have been negligently maintained on a pier alongside of which was moored a ferry boat of which as a consequence of employment by the defendant, he was the captain. Judgment dismissing the complaint unanimously affirmed, with costs. The pier was a way or means furnished by the defendant to [791]*791enable the plaintiff to have access to the ferry ooat of which he was captain. An injury received on that pier while plaintiff was progressing over the pier to reach the ferry boat was, therefore, an injury received in the course of his employment, for which he must seek compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Matter of Carter v. Gordiner & Warring Co., 194 App. Div. 925; affd., 230 N. Y. 597; Matter of Driscoll v. Gillen & Sons Lighterage, Inc., 187 App. Div. 908; affd., 226 N. Y. 568; Matter of Ross v. Howieson, 232 id. 604.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

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

Action for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff as a consequence of his falling over a beam claimed to have been negligently maintained on a pier alongside of which was moored a ferry boat of which as a consequence of employment by the defendant, he was the captain. Judgment dismissing the complaint unanimously affirmed, with costs. The pier was a way or means furnished by the defendant to [791]*791enable the plaintiff to have access to the ferry ooat of which he was captain. An injury received on that pier while plaintiff was progressing over the pier to reach the ferry boat was, therefore, an injury received in the course of his employment, for which he must seek compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Matter of Carter v. Gordiner & Warring Co., 194 App. Div. 925; affd., 230 N. Y. 597; Matter of Driscoll v. Gillen & Sons Lighterage, Inc., 187 App. Div. 908; affd., 226 N. Y. 568; Matter of Ross v. Howieson, 232 id. 604.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 790, 292 N.Y.S. 375, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack