application of the above rule in New York

2024Moreover, that the plaintiff's vice president had a master electrician's license, and that the defendant's architect knew that the electrical work permits were issued to an entity other than the plaintiff, does not bar the application of the above rule ( see Bronold v Engler , 194 NY 323 ; Fisher Mech.

2024Corp. v Gateway Demolition Corp. , 247 AD2d at 580 ; Piersa, Inc. v Rosenthal , 72 AD2d 593 ).

2024Corp. v Gateway Demolition Corp. , 247 AD2d at 580 ; Piersa, Inc. v Rosenthal , 72 AD2d 593 ).

1970(Marlowe v. Patt, 277 App. Div. 806 [3d Dept., 1950]; Hyde Park Flint Bottle Co. v. Miller, 179 App. Div. 73 [1st Dept., 1917]; Collier Bankruptcy Manual, § 17.06 [3d ed., 1969]; cf. Shire v. Bornstein, 4 A D 2d 74 [1st Dept., 1957], affd. 4 N Y 2d 299 [1958].) Nevertheless, I have been troubled by the inequity that seemed to me to inhere in the application of the above doctrine to the totality of the circumstances here presented.

1965The dominant philosophy in decisional law, particularly in workmen’s compensation, is that when an employee is sent on his employer’s business at a distance from his home, and is directed to remain in a particular locality, he “is not expected to wait immobile, but may indulge in any reasonable activity at that place, and if he does so the risk inherent in such activity in an incident of Ms employment.” (Matter of Davis v. Newsweek Mag., 305 N. Y. 20, 28 .) It has been held that the type of activity in which the plaintiff and his fellow employee driver were engaged when the car accident and in

1951Co., 152 Ohio St. 463 .) Illustrations of the application of the above principle, where recovery was denied as a matter of law, are numerous.

1935Matter of Simmons, 195 N. Y. 573 ; Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston, 217 U. S. 189 ; Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 258 N. Y. 136, 152 ; Matter of City of New York [Sedgwick Ave.], 213 N. Y. 438 .) The application of the above principle works no hardship, since all that is involved is the change of a private street into a public street.

1935Matter of Simmons, 195 N. Y. 573 ; Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston, 217 U. S. 189 ; Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 258 N. Y. 136, 152 ; Matter of City of New York [Sedgwick Ave.], 213 N. Y. 438 .) The application of the above principle works no hardship, since all that is involved is the change of a private street into a public street.

1935Matter of Simmons, 195 N. Y. 573 ; Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston, 217 U. S. 189 ; Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 258 N. Y. 136, 152 ; Matter of City of New York [Sedgwick Ave.], 213 N. Y. 438 .) The application of the above principle works no hardship, since all that is involved is the change of a private street into a public street.

1935Matter of Simmons, 195 N. Y. 573 ; Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston, 217 U. S. 189 ; Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 258 N. Y. 136, 152 ; Matter of City of New York [Sedgwick Ave.], 213 N. Y. 438 .) The application of the above principle works no hardship, since all that is involved is the change of a private street into a public street.

1911Roosevelt Hospital v. Raymond, 194 N. Y. 189 , 87 N. E. 90 , in which the Court of Appeals attempts to distinguish that case from the many other similar cases decided under the general rule.

1911Roosevelt Hospital v. Raymond, 194 N. Y. 189 , 87 N. E. 90 , in which the Court of Appeals attempts to distinguish that case from the many other similar cases decided under the general rule.