Rufo v. Orlando
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
Plaintiff has recovered judgment against Orlando, the sole defendant, for personal injuries allegedly resulting from Orlando’s negligence. Orlando, who was the excavation contractor on a construction job, has in turn recovered judgment upon his third-party complaint against the general contractor, Northcrest. Implicit in the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff was a finding that Orlando’s failure to provide shoring and bracing in connection with his excavation work was a violation of the pertinent rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals that were promulgated pursuant to the authority…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Semanchuck v. Fifth Avenue & 37th Street Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Walters v. Rao Electrical Equipment Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Howe v. . Buffalo, N.Y. Erie R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Rhynders v. GreeneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
- Zimmermann v. WeberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kupersmidt v. New York Telephone Co.New York Supreme Court · 1967
- Martin v. Siegfried Construction Co.New York Supreme Court · 1961
- Rooney v. S. A. Healy Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963