Dreyer v. Tishman Realty & Construction Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Dreyer v. Tishman Realty & Construction Co.

366 N.E.2d 873, 42 N.Y.2d 883, 397 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2223

DecidedJune 14, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 366 N.E.2d 873 (Dreyer v. Tishman Realty & Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dreyer v. Tishman Realty & Construction Co., 366 N.E.2d 873, 42 N.Y.2d 883, 397 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2223 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for review of the facts pursuant to CPLR 5613. A jury question as to negligence was presented under the status rule enunciated by this court recently. (Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233; Scurti v City of New York, 40 NY2d 433; Barker v Parnossa, Inc., 39 NY2d 926; Parish v Henneberry Rd. Farms, 39 NY2d 932.) Hence, the Appellate Division might not reverse, on the law, the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. (See, e.g., Londa v Dougbay Estates, 40 NY2d 1001.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for review of the facts pursuant to CPLR 5613. A jury question as to negligence was presented under the status rule enunciated by this court recently. (Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233; Scurti v City of New York, 40 NY2d 433; Barker v Parnossa, Inc., 39 NY2d 926; Parish v Henneberry Rd. Farms, 39 NY2d 932.) Hence, the Appellate Division might not reverse, on the law, the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. (See, e.g., Londa v Dougbay Estates, 40 NY2d 1001.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 N.E.2d 873, 42 N.Y.2d 883, 397 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dreyer-v-tishman-realty-construction-co-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack