Berg v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berg v. City of New York

42 A.D.2d 770, 346 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3688

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 30, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 770 (Berg v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berg v. City of New York, 42 A.D.2d 770, 346 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Eva Berg, etc., the third-party defendant appeals -from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 15, 1973, which denied her motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. Order affirmed, without costs. In our view an appeal lies from an order denying a written motion on notice to dismiss a third-party complaint following the trial of an action in which the jury was unable to reach agreement as to the merits of the main action (see Richardson v. Wengate, 33 A D 2d 947). We affirm in the interests of justice in order to furnish the defendant city the opportunity to adduce [771]*771proof that the defective condition of the sidewalk was the result of the cellar door, a special use or construction from which the third-party defendant derives a benefit (see Niekelsburg v. City of New York, 263 App. Div. 625). Rabin, P. J., Munder, Latham, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Eva Berg, etc., the third-party defendant appeals -from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 15, 1973, which denied her motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. Order affirmed, without costs. In our view an appeal lies from an order denying a written motion on notice to dismiss a third-party complaint following the trial of an action in which the jury was unable to reach agreement as to the merits of the main action (see Richardson v. Wengate, 33 A D 2d 947). We affirm in the interests of justice in order to furnish the defendant city the opportunity to adduce [771]*771proof that the defective condition of the sidewalk was the result of the cellar door, a special use or construction from which the third-party defendant derives a benefit (see Niekelsburg v. City of New York, 263 App. Div. 625). Rabin, P. J., Munder, Latham, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 770, 346 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berg-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack