# Brown v. Welsbach Corp.

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · October 31, 1949 · 275 A.D.2d 1061

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6058708

## Case

- **Full name:** Gloria Brown v. Welsbach Corporation
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** October 31, 1949
- **Citations:** 275 A.D.2d 1061
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6058708

## Opinion text

The accident, involving a fall on a then exposed *1062 hole seven inches in diameter and five feet deep, occurred on September 14,1947. Assuming negligence of said defendant in construction of the concrete covering over the foundation, it could not be held liable in the light of the acceptance by the City of New York of the work after its completion on January 23, 1947. (Coleman v. Guidone & Son, Inc., 192 App. Div. 120 .) In any event the contract between said defendant and the City of New York, incident to which the work was performed, had expired as of June 30, 1947, and hence defendant had no supervisory power and was out of control and no longer liable at the time of the accident under the applicable general rule at common law. (Mayor of City of Albany v. Cunliff, 2 N. Y. 165 ; Cullings v. Goetz, 256 N. Y. 287, 290 ; Cunningham v. Gillespie Co., 241 Mass. 280 ; Board of Education, Town of North Hempstead v. Town of North Hempstead, 259 App. Div. 733 .) This is not a ease which is within the exceptions to the foregoing well-settled rule, which are (a) where there was retention of a financial interest (Covert v. Cranford, 141 N. Y. 521, 527 ; Swords v. Edgar, 59 N. Y. 28, 35 ); (b) concealment of a defect (Kilmer v. White, 254 N. Y. 64, 70 ); or (c) lack of reasonable opportunity by a successor in control to discover the condition on prompt inspection (Pharm v. Lituehy, 283 N. Y. 130, 132 ). Findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6058708. Public record. Not legal advice.