North Star Contracting Corp. v. Burton F. Clark, Inc.

214 A.D.2d 550, 625 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3533
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 3, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 550 (North Star Contracting Corp. v. Burton F. Clark, Inc.) 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
North Star Contracting Corp. v. Burton F. Clark, Inc., 214 A.D.2d 550, 625 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

In two consolidated actions, inter alia, to recover damages for property damage, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated April 27, 1993, which, upon an order dated March 26, 1993, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaints, is in favor of the defendant and against it dismissing the complaints and (2) so much of an order of the same court, entered July 14, 1993, as, upon reargument of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, adhered to its original determination. The plaintiffs notice of appeal from the order entered March 26, 1993, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed as the judgment was superseded by the order entered July 14, 1993, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered July 14, 1993, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant is entitled to judgment, as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable here. There is no definitive evidence as to the cause of the fire that damaged the plaintiffs property (see, Schultheis v Pristouris, 45 AD2d 864; Board of Educ. v Herb’s Dodge Sales & Serv., 79 AD2d 1049; Atlas Supply Co. v Colgate Contr., 8 AD2d 793). [551]*551Moreover, our conclusion remains the same even considering the memorandum prepared by two employees of the plaintiff, Pete Nowicki, Jr., and Charles Maneri, Sr., which was relied upon by the plaintiff but apparently disregarded by the Supreme Court. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hartford Insurance Co. of Midwest v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.
103 A.D.3d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Alomsi v. 250 Dean, LLC
101 A.D.3d 1056 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
One Beacon Insurance v. CMB Contracting Corp.
84 A.D.3d 902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Travelers Property Casualty v. Gomez Supermarket
195 Misc. 2d 876 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Keizer v. D'Agostino
272 A.D.2d 447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 A.D.2d 550, 625 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-star-contracting-corp-v-burton-f-clark-inc-nyappdiv-1995.