Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 175 N.E.2d 350 (NY 1961). · Go Syfert
Search
Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 175 N.E.2d 350 (NY 1961). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
57 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pellicano v. Lee (nyappdiv, 1982-09-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pellicano v. Lee
N.Y. App. Div. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
We conclude, after weighing the evidence, that it “so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff[s] that the verdict for the defendants] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Marion v McCasland, 16 AD2d 781, 782 ; see, also, Olsen v Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 AD 2d 539 , affd 9 NY2d 829 ; Mieuli v New York & Queens County Ry.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Krieger v. J. E. Greiner Co. (4×)
Md. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A.D.2d 539 , 205 N.Y.S.2d 60 (1960), aff'd, 9 N.Y.2d 829 , 175 N.E.2d 350 (1961). 2.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bernt Olsen
v.
Chase Manhattan Bank
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 20, 1961.
175 N.E.2d 350
Benjamin H. Biff and Alfred E. Hers for appellant., Patrick E. Gibbons and Boyce A. Wilson for respondents.
Cited by 49 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Under the trial court’s instructions, which were not excepted to by plaintiff and thereby constituted the law of the case, it was error to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of defendant bank. As to defendants architects and engineers, the evidence showed that their sole supervisory function was to insure performance of the construction work in accordance with the plans and specifications; to see that standards of safety were met in relation to the permanent construction, adjacent buildings, streets and subways, but not the safety of temporary platforms used in connection with the permanent construction work. There being no duty, we do not reach the question of liability to a third party by reason of nonfeasance.

The judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis, Burke and Foster concur.

Judgment affirmed.