From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Czesznek v. Ruffy Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 19, 1940
259 App. Div. 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)

Opinion

April 19, 1940.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County, O'BRIEN, J.

Herbert F. Hastings, Jr., attorney [ F.G. Mann with him on the brief], for the appellant.

Benjamin H. Siff of counsel [ Julian A. Oshlag, attorney], for the respondent.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., O'MALLEY, TOWNLEY, GLENNON and UNTERMYER, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.


The plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. ( Rohrbacher v. Gillig, 203 N.Y. 413; Hudson v. Church of Holy Trinity, 250 id. 513.) The instructions by the defendant's superintendent to the plaintiff on the day preceding the accident to place the mash in the boiler room of the cellar did not constitute an assurance to the plaintiff that he might proceed there safely in complete darkness and without guidance.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.


Summaries of

Czesznek v. Ruffy Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 19, 1940
259 App. Div. 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)
Case details for

Czesznek v. Ruffy Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS CZESZNEK, Respondent, v. RUFFY CORPORATION, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 19, 1940

Citations

259 App. Div. 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)
19 N.Y.S.2d 248

Citing Cases

Giardina v. Garnerville Holding Corp., Inc.

( Palmer v. Dearing, 93 N.Y. 7; Peil v. Reinhart, 127 N.Y. 381; Brown v. Wittner, 43 App. Div. 135; Morrissey…