From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Centino v. Isbrandtsen Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 25, 1962
180 N.E.2d 914 (N.Y. 1962)

Opinion

Argued January 10, 1962

Decided January 25, 1962

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, CHARLES J. BECKINELLA, J.

Lawrence J. Mahoney, Robert J. Giuffra and Albert D. Koch for third-party plaintiff-appellant.

Patrick E. Gibbons and Royce A. Wilson for third-party defendant-respondent.


Judgment reversed and amended judgment of Trial Term in favor of third-party, Isbrandtsen Company, Inc., against third-party defendant, Universal Terminal Stevedoring Corp., is reinstated, with costs against the latter in this court and in the Appellate Division. In our view, the injuries of plaintiff were "due to [respondent's] operation", irrespective of fault, and Trial Term was correct in holding respondent liable under the broad provisions of its indemnity agreement. No opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and FOSTER.


Summaries of

Centino v. Isbrandtsen Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 25, 1962
180 N.E.2d 914 (N.Y. 1962)
Case details for

Centino v. Isbrandtsen Company, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOSE L. CENTINO, Plaintiff, v. ISBRANDTSEN COMPANY, INC., Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 25, 1962

Citations

180 N.E.2d 914 (N.Y. 1962)
180 N.E.2d 914
225 N.Y.S.2d 761

Citing Cases

General Elec. Co. v. Hatzel Buehler

This loss was clearly one that resulted from performance of the work within the meaning of the subcontract…

Zullo v. Long Island Light. Co.

That the death occurred "by reason of the method or manner of doing the work" is evident from the conceded…