Continental Craftsmen, Inc. v. Sommer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Continental Craftsmen, Inc. v. Sommer

41 A.D.2d 716, 341 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4928

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 716 (Continental Craftsmen, Inc. v. Sommer) 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

Continental Craftsmen, Inc. v. Sommer, 41 A.D.2d 716, 341 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 9, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law, and summary judgment-denied, with $60 costs and disbursements to appellants to abide the event. In this action by a tenant of an abutting building against a general contractor and the foundation subcontractor, Special Term granted summary judgment. We find the record discloses several issues of fact as to whether there was negligence and whether that negligence caused the damage. The fact that a wall of the building partially occupied by plaintiff fell is not conclusive on these issues; and the building not being in defendants’ control res ipso does not apply. Hence there was no burden on defendants to explain the fall of the wall but only to present facts which raised an issue of their negligence. This they have done. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 9, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law, and summary judgment-denied, with $60 costs and disbursements to appellants to abide the event. In this action by a tenant of an abutting building against a general contractor and the foundation subcontractor, Special Term granted summary judgment. We find the record discloses several issues of fact as to whether there was negligence and whether that negligence caused the damage. The fact that a wall of the building partially occupied by plaintiff fell is not conclusive on these issues; and the building not being in defendants’ control res ipso does not apply. Hence there was no burden on defendants to explain the fall of the wall but only to present facts which raised an issue of their negligence. This they have done. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 716, 341 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-craftsmen-inc-v-sommer-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack