John D. Fouquet, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent

John D. Fouquet, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent. Second Department, January 24, 1908. Master and servant — draftsman and elevatorman fellow-servants. An architectural draftsman, working for a railroad in the upper story of its station is a fellow-servant with the elevatorman employed in the building, and cannot recover for injuries received through his negligence.. Appeal by the plaintiff, John D. Fouquet, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the. defendant, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Dutchess on the 18th day of January, 1901, upon the dismissal of the complaint- by direction of the court after a trial, at the Dutchess County Trial-Term, the jury having theretofore rendered á verdict in favor of the plaintiff,-and also .from an order entered in said cleric’s office on the 11th day of January, 190Y, granting the defendant’s motion to set aside said verdict and to dismiss the, complaint. The -action was to recover damages for negligence. Theodore H. Silkman [Harry W. Alden with him on the brief], for the appellant. John C. Robinson [Frank V. Johnson with him on the brief], for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Gaynor, J.:] Gaynor, J.: The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as architectural draughtsman, and provided by it with a room upstairs in its building known as the Grand Central Station, Hew York city,'where its passenger trains come in and go out. He was hurt by the negligence of the elevator man, also employed by the defendant, while being carried up to his room by the elevator in said building, which is used by all of' the employees of the defendant who work in rooms or offices in the said building. The plaintiff and the elevator man were fellow servants (Ross v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 488; affirmed, 74 N. Y. 617, without opinion; McDonald v. Simpson-Crawford Co., 114 App. Div. 859; Wright v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 564; Vick v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 95 id. 267; Spees v. Boggs, 198 Penn. St. 112). The judgment should be affirmed. Present—Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ. Judgment and orde.r unanimously affirmed, with costs.