Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

HARRY JOLLES, Appellant, v. 3720 CORPORATION, Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, a peddler, had been visiting the factory building maintained by defendant daily for months with the knowledge of defendant's agents, for the purpose of selling food to employees of tenants. Under such circumstances, he would appear to be a licensee. He established prima facie that the elevator shaft into which he fell was maintained in violation of the provisions of section 255 Lab. of the Labor Law. Plaintiff, being lawfully in the building, was entitled to the benefit of the protection afforded by the statute. ( Racine v. Morris, 201 N.Y. 240; McRickard v. Flint, 114 id. 222.) In the case of Stacy v. Shapiro ( 212 A.D. 723), relied on by respondent, no violation of a statutory duty was involved.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur. Present — LEVY, HAMMER and CALLAHAN, JJ.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JOLLES v. 3720 CORPORATION
(May 6, 1937)