Koch v. Brody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koch v. Brody

4 A.D.2d 885, 167 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4201

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 885 (Koch v. Brody) 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

Koch v. Brody, 4 A.D.2d 885, 167 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall on a stairway in a garden-type apartment against Deepdale Gardens First Corp., owner of the premises, and Frank Brody, the lessee of an apartment therein, Deepdale served a cross complaint on Brody alleging active negligence on his part. The appeal is from an order granting a motion to dismiss the cross complaint. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The cross complaint fails to state facts sufficient to support the inference that Brody, the lessee, is one who is or may be liable to Deepdale, his lessor, for all or part of the claim asserted against it in the action. (Cf. Besniek v. City of New York, 286 App. Div. 861, and cases cited therein.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall on a stairway in a garden-type apartment against Deepdale Gardens First Corp., owner of the premises, and Frank Brody, the lessee of an apartment therein, Deepdale served a cross complaint on Brody alleging active negligence on his part. The appeal is from an order granting a motion to dismiss the cross complaint. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The cross complaint fails to state facts sufficient to support the inference that Brody, the lessee, is one who is or may be liable to Deepdale, his lessor, for all or part of the claim asserted against it in the action. (Cf. Besniek v. City of New York, 286 App. Div. 861, and cases cited therein.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 885, 167 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koch-v-brody-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack