New York Court of Appeals, 1976

Heil v. F & M Schaefer Brewing Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 26, 1976

38 N.Y.2d 935; 346 N.E.2d 824; 382 N.Y.S.2d 986; 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2368

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Martin v. Kiendl Construction Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)
Torrie v. Virtuoso Building Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
People v. Acevedo (Miriam) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
In re the Claim of Barnes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
In re the Claim of Gaines (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
McCullough v. Gardner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
In re the Claim of Kreppel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
In re the Claim of Thomas Sligh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
In re the Claim of Montuori (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Lombardi v. Stout (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
In re the Claim of Lawson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. None of the alleged errors warrant reversal.

Adam Heil, an Armor Elevator Company employee, was injured in a fall from a vertical ladder, claimed to have been positioned improperly, which served as sole access to the upper roof of defendant’s Brooklyn brewery. From that level a stairway led directly to the elevator motor room. Use of both the ladder and the stairway was required in order to ascend from the roof to the motor room, two levels above.

The trial court correctly recognized the questions of fact, including, inter alia, those relating to section 200 of the Labor Law, and properly placed them before the jury. Further, by testimony describing and photographs depicting the sole mode of access to the elevator motor room, the record reveals that the court was correct, both factually and legally, in charging that violations of pertinent provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York and of the Industrial Code of the State of New York could be considered by the jury as some evidence of defendant’s negligence (see Major v Waverly & Ogden, 7 NY2d 332, 336; 1 Warren’s Negligence, §§ 8.03, 9.01, 9.02).

*937Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.