32:T514,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Adler v. Long Island Railroad Company, 297 N.Y. 542","datePublished":"1947-07-02","legislationDate":"1947-07-02","citation":"Adler v. Long Island Railroad Company, 297 N.Y. 542 (NY 1947)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"New York Court of Appeals","description":"Read the full text of Adler v. Long Island Railroad Company (Adler v. Long Island Railroad Company, 297 N.Y. 542 (NY 1947)). This legal opinion, filed in 1947-07-02, from the New York Court of Appeals discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/adler-v-long-island-railroad--3587639"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/adler-v-long-island-railroad--3587639","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Adler v. Long Island Railroad Company, New York Court of Appeals, Adler v. Long Island Railroad Company, 297 N.Y. 542 (NY 1947)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T4e0,

*544 As to the defendant Long Island Bailroad Company, judgment affirmed, with costs. Concur: Lewis, Thagher, Dye and Fuld, JJ. Dissent: Lohghran, Ch. J., Conway and Desmond, JJ. ,

As to the defendant Tully & Di Napoli, Inc., judgments reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Concur: Lohghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thagher and Furo, JJ. Dye, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the ground there is no common-law liability of this defendant under the authority of Moore v. Wills, Inc. (250 N. Y. 426) and Iacono v. Frank & Frank Contracting Co. (259 N. Y. 377).

A majority of the court is of opinion that subdivision 7 of section 241 of the Labor Law has no application to either defendant in the circumstances of this case. .A majority of the court is of opinion that there was evidence of common-law negligence proper to be submitted to the jury as against the defendant Tully & Di Napoli, Inc.