Opinion · Nylaw New York

DIMARE v. GEORGE F. DRISCOLL COMPANY, 241 App. Div. 736 (1934)

VINCENT DIMARE, Respondent, Appellant, v. GEORGE F. DRISCOLL COMPANY,Appellant, & McCLINTIC MARSHALL Corp., Defendant., 241 A.D. 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1934)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1934-01-01
Topic: general

DIMARE v. GEORGE F. DRISCOLL COMPANY, 241 App. Div. 736 (1934) VINCENT DIMARE, Respondent, Appellant, v. GEORGE F.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed DIMARE v. GEORGE F. DRISCOLL COMPANY, 241 App. Div. 736 (1934). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

DIMARE v. GEORGE F. DRISCOLL COMPANY,241 App. Div. 736(1934)

VINCENT DIMARE, Respondent, Appellant, v. GEORGE F. DRISCOLL COMPANY,

Appellant, and McCLINTIC MARSHALL CORPORATION, Defendant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

March, 1934.

Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs, on the grounds: (1) The place from which plaintiff fell was not a place of work which the general contractor was bound to keep safe from the defects of which complaint is here made; it was under the control of plaintiff's employer. (See general rule stated by Mr. Justice Davis inWohlfronv.Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc.,238 App. Div. 463; affd.,263 N.Y. 547.) (2) It was not a place of work provided by defendant, appellant. (Iaconov.Frank Frank ContractingCo.,259 N.Y. 377.) (3) To charge defendant, appellant, with negligence under the facts in this case would require of it a measure of duty which would go beyond the bounds of what is practicable and reasonable. (Caspersenv.La Sala Bros.,253 N.Y. 491.) The direction alleged to have been given by the superintendent of defendant, appellant, to the foreman of plaintiff, that the employees of whom the foreman had charge should proceed to do their work on the second floor was not an assumption of control by defendant, appellant, of the work to be done or the place in which it was to be done. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. Lazansky, P.J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.