Kaiser v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaiser v. City of New York

35 A.D.2d 965, 318 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.2d 965 (Kaiser 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

Kaiser v. City of New York, 35 A.D.2d 965, 318 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

No opinion. Martuseello, Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., and Benjamin, J., concur in the affirmance as to defendant City of New York, but otherwise dissent and vote to reverse the judgment as to defendant Holobigian and to grant a new trial as to him, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, there was a jury question as to the liability of defendant Holobigian in view of the assumption of direction by him of the work under the excavation contract and, specifically, in directing the excavation contractor to dig to the depth of six feet when he was at least in possession of facts which would draw to his knowledge that an existing foundation wall was in the vicinity of the work and would be endangered by digging to that depth.

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

No opinion. Martuseello, Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., and Benjamin, J., concur in the affirmance as to defendant City of New York, but otherwise dissent and vote to reverse the judgment as to defendant Holobigian and to grant a new trial as to him, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, there was a jury question as to the liability of defendant Holobigian in view of the assumption of direction by him of the work under the excavation contract and, specifically, in directing the excavation contractor to dig to the depth of six feet when he was at least in possession of facts which would draw to his knowledge that an existing foundation wall was in the vicinity of the work and would be endangered by digging to that depth.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.2d 965, 318 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaiser-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1970.