From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chasen v. Astoria Light, Heat and Power Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1914
161 App. Div. 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1914)

Opinion

February, 1914.


Plaintiff's reaching his arm beneath the belting and along the face of the revolving pulley to apply a cling material, so as to make the pulley engage the belting, was incurring needlessly the obvious risk of his arm being drawn into the pulley. His own testimony, therefore, showed that plaintiff was not "in the exercise of due care and diligence at the time," within Labor Law (§ 200), so that at the close of the whole case defendant might properly have moved for the direction of a verdict. Although contributory negligence did appear still it is not stated that the case as settled contains the exceptions taken by respondent. Hence, under Finney v. National Fire Proofing Co. ( 153 App. Div. 1; 208 N.Y. 625), the proper disposition is to grant a new trial, and not direct final judgment under section 1317 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment and order denying a new trial are, therefore, reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Thomas, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P.J., not voting.


Summaries of

Chasen v. Astoria Light, Heat and Power Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1914
161 App. Div. 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1914)
Case details for

Chasen v. Astoria Light, Heat and Power Company

Case Details

Full title:Max Chasen, Respondent, v. Astoria Light, Heat and Power Company, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1914

Citations

161 App. Div. 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1914)