Viccica v. Mayflower Agency Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Viccica v. Mayflower Agency Co.

10 A.D.2d 822, 199 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10632

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

DecidedApril 12, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 822 (Viccica v. Mayflower Agency Co.) 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

Viccica v. Mayflower Agency Co., 10 A.D.2d 822, 199 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term and the judgment of the City Court unanimously reversed on the fa rtfs and on the law, and a new trial [823]*823ordered, with costs to appellant in this court and in the Appellate Term. This is an appeal from an affirmance by the Appellate Term of a judgment of the City Court, dismissing the complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff sought recovery for injuries she received as the result of being struck by1 the door of a freight elevator in a building where she was employed. The plaintiff was waiting with fellow employees to be carried from the fifteenth floor to ground level. In addition to common-law negligence, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the Labor Law (§ 255), which requires elevators in factory buildings to be “ constructed, guarded, equipped, main-, tained and operated so as to be safe for all persons ”. There was no proof offered at the trial to establish that the building in question was a factory building within the Labor Law definition of such a structure. On that aspect of the case, therefore, the trial court was correct. However, on the question of common-law negligence, the proof raised the issues of negligence and contributory negligence sufficient to require their submission to the jury. It was error, therefore, to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Concur — M. M. Frank, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

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

Determination of the Appellate Term and the judgment of the City Court unanimously reversed on the fa rtfs and on the law, and a new trial [823]*823ordered, with costs to appellant in this court and in the Appellate Term. This is an appeal from an affirmance by the Appellate Term of a judgment of the City Court, dismissing the complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff sought recovery for injuries she received as the result of being struck by1 the door of a freight elevator in a building where she was employed. The plaintiff was waiting with fellow employees to be carried from the fifteenth floor to ground level. In addition to common-law negligence, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the Labor Law (§ 255), which requires elevators in factory buildings to be “ constructed, guarded, equipped, main-, tained and operated so as to be safe for all persons ”. There was no proof offered at the trial to establish that the building in question was a factory building within the Labor Law definition of such a structure. On that aspect of the case, therefore, the trial court was correct. However, on the question of common-law negligence, the proof raised the issues of negligence and contributory negligence sufficient to require their submission to the jury. It was error, therefore, to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Concur — M. M. Frank, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 822, 199 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viccica-v-mayflower-agency-co-nyappdiv-1960.