Infosino v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Infosino v. City of New York

25 A.D.2d 841, 270 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4191

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

DecidedMay 19, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 841 (Infosino v. City of New York) 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

Infosino v. City of New York, 25 A.D.2d 841, 270 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dismissing the complaints against defendant-respondent City of New York in consolidated actions for the wrongful death of six New York City firemen and personal injuries of a seventh fireman, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record fails to establish actionable negligence under the common law. (Motyka v. City of Amsterdam, 15 N Y 2d 134.) Insofar as the plaintiffs rely on section 205-a of the General Municipal Law, there is no cause of action thereon as to the City of New York in respect of its alleged failure to effect compliance with charter and code provisions relating to the construction of the parapet wall. Section 205-a imposes liability for “ failing to comply ” with requirements of statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of various governmental agencies. In the instant case, the duty of compliance was on the owner and other persons responsibile for the erection of the parapet wall, Nykanen v. City of New York (14 N Y 2d 697) is inapplicable because defendant was there charged with liability as owner of the property. Here, plaintiffs seek to charge the City of New York not as owner but for its failure to comply with its general duty to effect compliance, which is not within the scope of section 205-a.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment dismissing the complaints against defendant-respondent City of New York in consolidated actions for the wrongful death of six New York City firemen and personal injuries of a seventh fireman, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record fails to establish actionable negligence under the common law. (Motyka v. City of Amsterdam, 15 N Y 2d 134.) Insofar as the plaintiffs rely on section 205-a of the General Municipal Law, there is no cause of action thereon as to the City of New York in respect of its alleged failure to effect compliance with charter and code provisions relating to the construction of the parapet wall. Section 205-a imposes liability for “ failing to comply ” with requirements of statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of various governmental agencies. In the instant case, the duty of compliance was on the owner and other persons responsibile for the erection of the parapet wall, Nykanen v. City of New York (14 N Y 2d 697) is inapplicable because defendant was there charged with liability as owner of the property. Here, plaintiffs seek to charge the City of New York not as owner but for its failure to comply with its general duty to effect compliance, which is not within the scope of section 205-a.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 841, 270 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/infosino-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack