From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zuco v. Funt

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 2, 1944
54 N.E.2d 365 (N.Y. 1944)

Opinion

Argued January 6, 1944

Decided March 2, 1944

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, NORTON, J.

Paul O'Dwyer for appellants.

Sidney J. Loeb, Charles H. Lane and Leo F. Potts for Isidore Funt, respondent. William L. Shumate for Sunrise Iron Works, Inc., respondent.

Martin A. Crean for Sunset Gardens, Inc., respondent.


The evidence presented an issue of fact as to whether, in the construction of the building in which the plaintiff Rosario Zuco was injured, the proximate cause of his injuries was the defendants' failure to perform a statutory duty (Labor Law, § 241, subd. 4) which required them thoroughly to plank over steel beams on which structural steel work was being erected above the place where the plaintiff was working. (See Lyles v. Terry Tench Co., 227 N.Y. 361, 363-365.) Upon this record we cannot say, as did the Appellate Division ( 266 App. Div. 802), that the testimony of the witness Marino was incredible as a matter of law.

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, RIPPEY, LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND and THACHER, JJ. concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Zuco v. Funt

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 2, 1944
54 N.E.2d 365 (N.Y. 1944)
Case details for

Zuco v. Funt

Case Details

Full title:ROSARIO ZUCO et al., Appellants, v. ISIDORE FUNT et al., Respondents, et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 2, 1944

Citations

54 N.E.2d 365 (N.Y. 1944)
54 N.E.2d 365

Citing Cases

Martin v. Siegfried Constr. Co.

The Labor Law should be construed liberally in an effort to apply its protection where the protection is…

Noonan v. Paine

( Meiselman v. Crown Heights Hospital, 285 N.Y. 389, 398.) We think that, as the evidence stood at the close…