Pimm v. Utilities Contractors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pimm v. Utilities Contractors, Inc.

27 A.D.2d 700, 276 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5005

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 700 (Pimm v. Utilities Contractors, 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

Pimm v. Utilities Contractors, Inc., 27 A.D.2d 700, 276 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed and motion denied, all without costs. Memorandum: We said in Donnelly v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. (21 A D 2d 740): “It is not clear that the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation on the basis of passive negligence. That being so, the second cause of action in the third-party complaint was improperly dismissed as insufficient in law. This is particularly so when the cause of action which was dismissed is viewed in the light of 3013 and subdivision (a) of 3017 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. (See, also, 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3013.03; also Foley v. D’Agostino, 21 A D 2d 60.)” The same legal principles and reasoning apply to the present ease. (Appeal by third party plaintiff from order of Monroe Special Term, granting motion of third-party defendant to dismiss third-party complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ. [50 Misc 2d 1092.]

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

Order unanimously reversed and motion denied, all without costs. Memorandum: We said in Donnelly v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. (21 A D 2d 740): “It is not clear that the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation on the basis of passive negligence. That being so, the second cause of action in the third-party complaint was improperly dismissed as insufficient in law. This is particularly so when the cause of action which was dismissed is viewed in the light of 3013 and subdivision (a) of 3017 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. (See, also, 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3013.03; also Foley v. D’Agostino, 21 A D 2d 60.)” The same legal principles and reasoning apply to the present ease. (Appeal by third party plaintiff from order of Monroe Special Term, granting motion of third-party defendant to dismiss third-party complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ. [50 Misc 2d 1092.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 700, 276 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pimm-v-utilities-contractors-inc-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack