Langelotti v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Langelotti v. City of New York

264 A.D. 878, 35 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5220

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

DecidedJune 15, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 878 (Langelotti 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

Langelotti v. City of New York, 264 A.D. 878, 35 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action against the city of New York and its employee to recover damages for personal injuries, on motion of the city, the Williams-Bauer Corporation was impleaded as a party defendant. In the city’s cross-complaint against the impleaded defendant it is alleged that prior to the date of the accident the city entered into a contract with the impleaded defendant, under which the latter [879]*879agreed to save the city harmless from any and all damages arising from every act of omission and commission mentioned in the plaintiff’s complaint. Thereafter the impleaded defendant served a demand on the city for a bill of particulars concerning the claimed negligence, as alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint. The city moved to vacate the demand. The motion was denied and the city appeals. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The city’s cross-claim against the impleaded defendant rests solely on the impleaded defendant’s indemnity agreement and, therefore, it was error to deny the motion to vacate the demand for a bill of particulars. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

In an action against the city of New York and its employee to recover damages for personal injuries, on motion of the city, the Williams-Bauer Corporation was impleaded as a party defendant. In the city’s cross-complaint against the impleaded defendant it is alleged that prior to the date of the accident the city entered into a contract with the impleaded defendant, under which the latter [879]*879agreed to save the city harmless from any and all damages arising from every act of omission and commission mentioned in the plaintiff’s complaint. Thereafter the impleaded defendant served a demand on the city for a bill of particulars concerning the claimed negligence, as alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint. The city moved to vacate the demand. The motion was denied and the city appeals. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The city’s cross-claim against the impleaded defendant rests solely on the impleaded defendant’s indemnity agreement and, therefore, it was error to deny the motion to vacate the demand for a bill of particulars. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 878, 35 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langelotti-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1942.