Di Pippi v. City of Port Jervis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Pippi v. City of Port Jervis

56 A.D.2d 589, 391 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10649

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 589 (Di Pippi v. City of Port Jervis) 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

Di Pippi v. City of Port Jervis, 56 A.D.2d 589, 391 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In multiple actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their notices of appeal and brief, from so much of two judgments of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered November 26, 1975 and December 15, 1975, respectively, as is in favor of defendants City of Port Jervis and Jack Hartford and against them, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaints against the said defendants at the close of the plaintiffs’ cases, at a jury trial. Judgments affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The circumstances do not show a special duty between the City of Port Jervis or its building official, Hartford, to the plaintiffs, who were in a nearby diner when the building herein involved collapsed (see Motyka v City of Amsterdam, 15 NY2d 134; Whitney v City of New York, 27 AD2d 528; Stranger v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 25 AD2d 169; Sherwin Williams Co. v City of Port Jervis, 48 AD2d 711). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In multiple actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their notices of appeal and brief, from so much of two judgments of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered November 26, 1975 and December 15, 1975, respectively, as is in favor of defendants City of Port Jervis and Jack Hartford and against them, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaints against the said defendants at the close of the plaintiffs’ cases, at a jury trial. Judgments affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The circumstances do not show a special duty between the City of Port Jervis or its building official, Hartford, to the plaintiffs, who were in a nearby diner when the building herein involved collapsed (see Motyka v City of Amsterdam, 15 NY2d 134; Whitney v City of New York, 27 AD2d 528; Stranger v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 25 AD2d 169; Sherwin Williams Co. v City of Port Jervis, 48 AD2d 711). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 589, 391 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-pippi-v-city-of-port-jervis-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack