Zuco v. Funt

54 N.E.2d 365, 292 N.Y. 201, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1393
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 2, 1944
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 54 N.E.2d 365 (Zuco v. Funt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Zuco v. Funt, 54 N.E.2d 365, 292 N.Y. 201, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1393 (N.Y. 1944).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The evidence presented an issue of fact as to whether, in the construction of the building in which the plaintiff Rosario Zuco was injured, the proximate cause of his injuries was the defendants’ failure to perform a statutory duty (Labor Law, § 241, subd. 4) which required them thoroughly to plank over steel beams on which structural steel work was being erected above the place where the plaintiff was working. (See Lyles v. Terry & Tench Co., 227 N. Y. 361, 363-365.) Upon this record we cannot say, as did the Appellate Division (266 App. Div. 802), that the testimony of the witness Marino was incredible as a matter of law.

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

LehmaN, Ch. J., LotjgiíRAN, Uippey, Lewis, Couway, DesmoND and Thacher, JJ. concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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

Related

Martin v. Siegfried Construction Co.
16 A.D.2d 383 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
Noonan v. Paine
267 A.D. 1035 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 N.E.2d 365, 292 N.Y. 201, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zuco-v-funt-ny-1944.