Case Name: Cesidio Pellegrino, Appellant, v. Clarence L. Smith Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-01
Citations: 172 A.D. 922
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cesidio Pellegrino, Appellant, v. Clarence L. Smith Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 172
Pages: 922–922

Head Matter:
Cesidio Pellegrino, Appellant, v. Clarence L. Smith Company, Respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. We think that this case, on the present record, does not fall within the doctrine of Citrone v. O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. (188 N. Y. 339). According to plaintiff's testimony there was an assurance by defendant's representative that no danger existed, and a promise of notification when danger should become imminent. This brings the case within the doc trine of Rice v. Eureka Paper Co. (174 N. Y. 385). Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.