Giges v. Cerak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giges v. Cerak

9 A.D.2d 895, 195 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5713

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 895 (Giges v. Cerak) 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

Giges v. Cerak, 9 A.D.2d 895, 195 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Action in the City Court of White Plains by a contractor for the installation of a swimming pool to recover damages for injury to property against Albert Cerak, employed by the contractor to do certain excavating and backfilling work, John E. Winter, employed by Cerak to do part of the work, and Anthony M. Fanelli, employed to remove some backfill from the premises. The court, before which the action was tried without a [896]*896jury, found in favor of the contractor against Winter and Fanelli and dismissed the complaint as to Cerak. Winter appeals from so much of the judgment entered thereon as is in favor of the contractor and against him, and the contractor appeals from so much of said judgment as is in favor of Cerak and against him. Judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent-appellant payable by appellant, and to respondent payable by respondent-appellant. No opinion. Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.; Murphy, J., deceased.

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

Action in the City Court of White Plains by a contractor for the installation of a swimming pool to recover damages for injury to property against Albert Cerak, employed by the contractor to do certain excavating and backfilling work, John E. Winter, employed by Cerak to do part of the work, and Anthony M. Fanelli, employed to remove some backfill from the premises. The court, before which the action was tried without a [896]*896jury, found in favor of the contractor against Winter and Fanelli and dismissed the complaint as to Cerak. Winter appeals from so much of the judgment entered thereon as is in favor of the contractor and against him, and the contractor appeals from so much of said judgment as is in favor of Cerak and against him. Judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent-appellant payable by appellant, and to respondent payable by respondent-appellant. No opinion. Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.; Murphy, J., deceased.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 895, 195 N.Y.S.2d 602, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giges-v-cerak-nyappdiv-1959.