Legal Opinion

Rufo v. Orlando

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 24, 1955PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Semanchuck v. Fifth Avenue & 37th Street Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1943
  2. Walters v. Rao Electrical Equipment Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1942
  3. Howe v. . Buffalo, N.Y. Erie R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1867
  4. Rhynders v. GreeneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
  5. Zimmermann v. WeberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kupersmidt v. New York Telephone Co.New York Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Martin v. Siegfried Construction Co.New York Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Rooney v. S. A. Healy Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API