Camarda v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camarda v. City of New York

2 A.D.2d 694, 153 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4966

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

DecidedJune 18, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 694 (Camarda 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

Camarda v. City of New York, 2 A.D.2d 694, 153 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Action on behalf of the infant respondent to recover damages for personal injuries and by his father for medical expenses and loss of services. The complaint alleges that respondent City of New York owned a certain building and that respondent city or defendant Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority was in the possession and control of the building; that the building was being demolished by appellant, Balkan Demolition Co., Inc., under contract with defendant Triborough, and that the infant was injured when a brick wall of the building, which wall was allowed to remain standing in an unsafe condition, fell and struck him. Respondent city served a cross complaint against defendant Triborough and appellant alleging that defendant Triborough owned, and was in possession and control of, the building, and that appellant created the unsafe condition. The appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and cross complaint or to drop the appellant as an improper party to the action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

Action on behalf of the infant respondent to recover damages for personal injuries and by his father for medical expenses and loss of services. The complaint alleges that respondent City of New York owned a certain building and that respondent city or defendant Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority was in the possession and control of the building; that the building was being demolished by appellant, Balkan Demolition Co., Inc., under contract with defendant Triborough, and that the infant was injured when a brick wall of the building, which wall was allowed to remain standing in an unsafe condition, fell and struck him. Respondent city served a cross complaint against defendant Triborough and appellant alleging that defendant Triborough owned, and was in possession and control of, the building, and that appellant created the unsafe condition. The appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and cross complaint or to drop the appellant as an improper party to the action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 694, 153 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camarda-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1956.