From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Agnelli v. Tonegatti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1964
20 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

April 30, 1964


Judgment unanimously reversed and vacated, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. The complaint is confusing and unnecessarily diffuse, and affords some justification for defendant's contention that it pleads a statutory cause of action based upon the Workmen's Compensation Law. It also alleges, however, a common-law cause of action based on negligence. Reading the complaint in conjunction with the bill of particulars, it is evident that defendant was not surprised or misled, and adequately apprised of the nature of plaintiff's claim. The judgment must nevertheless be vacated because it is against the weight of the credible evidence. To establish negligence on the part of her employer, plaintiff, a household worker, had to prove that the ladder from which she fell was defective. This she has failed to prove satisfactorily, perhaps because of language barriers. All she offered as to the condition of the ladder was her testimony that it was shaky and her very unclear and at times unintelligible testimony about some loose screws on the ladder.

Concur — Botein, P.J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

Agnelli v. Tonegatti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1964
20 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Agnelli v. Tonegatti

Case Details

Full title:ERCOLINA AGNELLI, Respondent, v. ANEA TONEGATTI, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 30, 1964

Citations

20 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Edwards v. Nemenyi

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Not only was there no proof identifying…

Edwards v. Nemenyi

Defendants' motion to dismiss made at the close of plaintiff's case should have been granted, since plaintiff…