Klein v. Bargray Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. Bargray Construction Corp.

1 A.D.2d 883

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 883 (Klein v. Bargray Construction Corp.) 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

Klein v. Bargray Construction Corp., 1 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

It is difficult to ascertain from the meager facts pleaded whether in this case the third-party plaintiff was required to maintain a sidewalk shed. Therefore, we need not determine whether the failure to provide such a shed constitutes active or passive negligence. In any event, the complaint is broad enough to admit of recovery by plaintiff upon acts of negligence separate and apart from the alleged failure to comply with the Administrative Code provisions for the maintenance of a sidewalk shed. There is a possibility that the proof upon the trial will establish that the third-party plaintiff was a passive tort-feasor entitled to recovery over from the third-party defendant as an active tort-feasor. Determination of the Appellate Term and the judgment and order of the City Court unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant in this court and in the Appellate Term, and the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Bergan, JJ.

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

It is difficult to ascertain from the meager facts pleaded whether in this case the third-party plaintiff was required to maintain a sidewalk shed. Therefore, we need not determine whether the failure to provide such a shed constitutes active or passive negligence. In any event, the complaint is broad enough to admit of recovery by plaintiff upon acts of negligence separate and apart from the alleged failure to comply with the Administrative Code provisions for the maintenance of a sidewalk shed. There is a possibility that the proof upon the trial will establish that the third-party plaintiff was a passive tort-feasor entitled to recovery over from the third-party defendant as an active tort-feasor. Determination of the Appellate Term and the judgment and order of the City Court unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant in this court and in the Appellate Term, and the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Rabin and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-bargray-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1956.