Higgins v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Higgins v. New York City Housing Authority

186 Misc. 2d 562

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 9, 2000·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On court’s own motion, appeals consolidated for purpose of disposition.

Judgments unanimously affirmed without costs.

The facts in this case are undisputed. While rectifying a power outage, a Con Edison employee connected a 220-volt line instead of 110 volts to power lines causing damage to plaintiffs’ personal property. Con Edison concedes that the tariff which gives it limited exemption from liability for damages caused by ordinary negligence in the interruption of the regular supply of service does not apply in this case. We, therefore, need not pass upon whether or not tenants of the Housing Authority are third-party beneficiaries to the contract between Con Edison and the Housing Authority. Plaintiffs have a direct tort action against Con Edison for the damage sustained by them as a result of Con Edison’s negligence (see, Lo Vico v Consolidated Edison Co., 99 Misc 2d 897).

Kassoff, P. J., Aronin and Chetta, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

On court’s own motion, appeals consolidated for purpose of disposition.

Judgments unanimously affirmed without costs.

The facts in this case are undisputed. While rectifying a power outage, a Con Edison employee connected a 220-volt line instead of 110 volts to power lines causing damage to plaintiffs’ personal property. Con Edison concedes that the tariff which gives it limited exemption from liability for damages caused by ordinary negligence in the interruption of the regular supply of service does not apply in this case. We, therefore, need not pass upon whether or not tenants of the Housing Authority are third-party beneficiaries to the contract between Con Edison and the Housing Authority. Plaintiffs have a direct tort action against Con Edison for the damage sustained by them as a result of Con Edison’s negligence (see, Lo Vico v Consolidated Edison Co., 99 Misc 2d 897).

Kassoff, P. J., Aronin and Chetta, JJ., concur.

Higgins v. New York City Housing Authority, 186 Misc. 2d 562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

186 Misc. 2d 562 (Higgins v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related