
    Morris Levenson, Respondent, v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Appellant.
    First Department,
    November 6, 1914.
    Master and servant — liability of owner to employee of contractor.
    An owner of buildings who transfers title thereto to a contractor in consideration of their removal owes no duty toward an assignee of the contractor who engaged to remove the buildings in consideration of receiving title thereto, except to protect him from bodily injury.
    Hence, the owner, having no contractual relation with the assignee, is not liable to him for the destruction of a part of one of the buildings which had not been torn down within a reasonable time.
    Appeal by the defendant, New York, New Haven and Hartford Eailroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 23d day of May, 1913, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 21st day of May, 1913, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
    
      Madison G. Gonterman, for the appellant.
    
      Abraham Oberstein, for the respondent.
   Scott, J.:

The defendant, wishing to clear the ground for four-tracking its road in New Haven, made a contract with the firm of Blakeslee & Sons to remove a number of buildings.

By the contract defendant in form agreed to sell to Blakeslee & Sons the specified buildings with the proviso that said buildings were not to become the property of said Blakeslee & Sons until after notice of removal had been given to them. The buildings were to be taken down from time to time on notice from defendant. Blakeslee & Sons thereupon made a contract with Cohen & Gingold, by which they undertook to sell the buildings to said Cohen & Gingold, who agreed to remove or destroy them in accordance with the plans and specifications of defendant’s contract with Blakeslee & Son, which were attached to the latter’s contract with Cohen & Gingold. Cohen & Gin-gold thereupon employed plaintiff to perform this work under the contract, and in consideration thereof and as payment for his services transferred to him all their right, title and interest in and to the buildings to be removed and the materials. Defendant was not a party to either of these last-mentioned contracts, and never consented to them. About May first, or a few days earlier, defendant notified Blakeslee & Son to remove the buildings in question, and he in turn notified plaintiff, who began to work, but was so slow that by May sixteenth the work was only partially done.

The evidence is that ten days would have been ample time within which to complete the work. On May sixteenth, in prosecuting the work of preparing the ground for laying its tracks, defendant demolished a part of the building which had then been only partially torn down. Later plaintiff completed the work.

We find it difficult to determine upon what theory plaintiff has recovered a judgment. He conceded that no contractual relation existed between himself and defendant and that he has no cause of action on contract. He claims, somewhat vaguely, to be entitled to recover as for a tort; but that presupposes some duty which defendant owed to him. We can see none. His position was merely that of a workman employed by defendant’s contractor to do the work contracted for. Short of the right to be protected from bodily injury, as to which there is no claim, we see no duty which defendant owed to plaintiff for the breach of which an action will lie.

It follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs to the defendant in this court and in the court below.

Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in this court and in the court below. Order to be settled on notice.  