Case Name: Cesidio PELLEGRINO, appellant, v. Clarence L. SMITH COMPANY, respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-01-07
Citations: 156 N.Y.S. 1138
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cesidio PELLEGRINO, appellant, v. Clarence L. SMITH COMPANY, respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 156
Pages: 1138–1138

Head Matter:
Cesidio PELLEGRINO, appellant, v. Clarence L. SMITH COMPANY, respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
January 7, 1916.)

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 Eng. Const. Co., 188 N. Y. 339, 80 N. E. 1092, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 340. 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 doctrine of Rice v. Eureka Paper Co., 174 N. Y. 385, 66 N. E. 979, 62 L. R. A. 611, 95 Am. St. Rep. 585. Jenks, P. J., and. Thomas, Carr, Mills, and Rich, JJ., concur.