300 N.Y.S.2d 589, 248 N.E.2d 445
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued March 3, 1969
Decided April 9, 1969
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, SAMUEL S. LEIBOWITZ, J.
Page 812
George D. Hudson, pro se, for appellant.
Vincent T. Aiello and Frank J. Amabile for respondent.
Order affirmed, without costs (Kowalsky v. Conreco Co., 264 N.Y. 125; Senkbeil v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 18 N.Y.2d 789, affg. 23 A.D.2d 587, 589). No opinion.
Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges SCILEPPI, BERGAN and JASEN. Judges BURKE, KEATING and BREITEL dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum: Plaintiff’s work was not concerned with the use or correction of the hazardous condition which caused the accident. Hence, the rule of the Kowalsky case (264 N.Y. 125) is not applicable. There was, therefore, an issue of fact to submit to the jury.
27 N.Y.S.2d 198 CORDAS et al. v. PEERLESS TRANSP. CO. et al. City Court of…
222 N.Y. 88 (1917) Dec 4, 1917 · New York Court of Appeals Otis F. Wood, Appellant,…
81 A.D.2d 434 (1981) 440 N.Y.S. 2d 941 Aharon Rahabi, Appellant, v. Jack Morrison et…
48 Misc.2d 345 (1965) In the Matter of The Estate of Joseph Schlinger, Deceased. Surrogate's…
103 A.D.2d 632 (1984)481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 Angelo J. Bartolone, Appellant, v. Lynne A. L.…
Matter of C.C. v D.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 Decided on September 18, 2025…