Murphy v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. City of New York

216 A.D.2d 110, 627 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6371

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about January 9, 1995, which denied third-party defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The deposition testimony submitted by the parties, the work records of defendant Con Edison, and the reply affidavit of third-party defendant City Wide’s supervisor raise an issue of fact whether City Wide performed resurfacing work for Con Edison in the area of the street defect that allegedly caused [111]*111plaintiff’s injuries. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about January 9, 1995, which denied third-party defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The deposition testimony submitted by the parties, the work records of defendant Con Edison, and the reply affidavit of third-party defendant City Wide’s supervisor raise an issue of fact whether City Wide performed resurfacing work for Con Edison in the area of the street defect that allegedly caused [111]*111plaintiff’s injuries. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Murphy v. City of New York, 216 A.D.2d 110, 627 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

216 A.D.2d 110 (Murphy v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related