Murphy v. City of New York
This text of 216 A.D.2d 110 (Murphy 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
216 A.D.2d 110, 627 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.