TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gabbamonte v. 16-20 West 19th Street, Inc.

Daniel Gabbamonte v. 16-20 West 19th Street, Inc., and Third-Party Circle Elevator Company, Third-Party

Gabbamonte v. 16-20 West 19th St., Inc., 14 A.D.2d 518 (1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 6, 1961
Citations
14 A.D.2d 518217 N.Y.S.2d 3451961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9568

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

This is an action by an employee of a contractor against the owner of a building to recover for personal injuries sustained when he fell through the escape hatch on top of a freight elevator when he was walking or standing thereon for purpose of replacing the shoes and gibs on the elevator. The case was submitted to the jury under a charge which authorized a finding by the jury of negligence on the part of the defendant because of a violation of the provisions of section 200 of the Labor Law, a violation of section 240 of the Labor Law, or a violation of common-law duties. The trial court specifically charged that section 240 of the Labor Law was “ applicable to the facts in this case ” in that the top of the elevator, used as a platform by plaintiff and his eoworker, was for the time being a scaffold; and that under the provisions of said section requiring “ that one employing or directing another to perform labor or doing repairs shall give proper protection to the worker, the plaintiff is entitled to the full protection of the statute”. We are of the opinion that under the circumstances here the court was in error in charging that the top of the elevator was a scaffold within the meaning of the provisions of section 240. (See Caddy v. Interborough R. T. Co., 195 N. Y. 415 ; Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co., 301 N. Y. 182, 187 ; cf. Croce v. Buckley, 115 App. *519 Div. 354, 357 .) Furthermore, under the circumstances here, the defendant was not in the position of “ employing or directing ” the plaintiff within the meaning of section 240. (See Kluttz v. Citron, 2 N Y 2d 379, 383; Blackwood v. Chemical Corn Exch. Bank, 4 A D 2d 650; Bellask v. Coronation Homes, 5 A D 2d 873, affd. 5 N Y 2d 956.) The jury having rendered a general verdict and liability based on a violation of section 240 not being sustainable, the verdict is to be set aside and a new trial granted. (6 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 617, § 10.) Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2000: 12003: 120002026peak 2000 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bonura v. KWK Associates2 A.D.3d 207 (2003)
  2. Rodgers v. 72nd Street Associates269 A.D.2d 258 (2000)

Most recent

  1. Bonura v. KWK Associates2 A.D.3d 207 (2003)
  2. Rodgers v. 72nd Street Associates269 A.D.2d 258 (2000)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co., 93 N.E.2d 629 (N.Y. 1950) 95
Caddy v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 88 N.E. 747 (N.Y. 1909) 87
Croce v. Buckley, 115 A.D. 354 (1906) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list