Russo v. Albert Pipe Supply Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. Albert Pipe Supply Co.

39 A.D.2d 721, 332 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4750

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

DecidedMay 1, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 721 (Russo v. Albert Pipe Supply Co.) 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

Russo v. Albert Pipe Supply Co., 39 A.D.2d 721, 332 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated June 14, 1971, which affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered November 17, 1969, in favor of plaintiff against appellant, upon a jury verdict. (The trial [722]*722court dismissed the third-party complaint at the end of the case.) Order affirmed, with costs to plaintiff and third-party defendant Kimball Motors Dispatch, Inc. We do not reach the question of the propriety of the dismissal of the third-party complaint by the trial court since there is no decretal paragraph in the judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and no appeal lies from rulings at the trial with respect thereto. However, we have examined the merits with respect to the dismissal of said complaint and if the dismissal were properly before use we would affirm it. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuseello, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated June 14, 1971, which affirmed a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered November 17, 1969, in favor of plaintiff against appellant, upon a jury verdict. (The trial [722]*722court dismissed the third-party complaint at the end of the case.) Order affirmed, with costs to plaintiff and third-party defendant Kimball Motors Dispatch, Inc. We do not reach the question of the propriety of the dismissal of the third-party complaint by the trial court since there is no decretal paragraph in the judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and no appeal lies from rulings at the trial with respect thereto. However, we have examined the merits with respect to the dismissal of said complaint and if the dismissal were properly before use we would affirm it. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuseello, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 721, 332 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-albert-pipe-supply-co-nyappdiv-1972.