Zuco v. Funt

54 N.E.2d 365, 292 N.Y. 201, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1393
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 2, 1944·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

54 N.E.2d 365 (Zuco v. Funt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)