Murphy v. City of New York

26 A.D.3d 190, 807 N.Y.S.2d 873

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered October 5, 2005, which denied the motion of third-party [191]*191defendant-appellant Yellowstone Industries for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact as to whether the defect in the roadway was caused in some measure by Yellowstone Industries, which performed excavation work at or near the accident site, mandated the denial of Yellowstone’s summary judgment motion (see Murphy v City of New York, 216 AD2d 110 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Murphy v. City of New York, 26 A.D.3d 190, 807 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

26 A.D.3d 190 (Murphy v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Murphy v. City of New York
216 A.D.2d 110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)