Russo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

97 A.D.2d 791, 468 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20547

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.2d 791 (Russo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, 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

Russo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 97 A.D.2d 791, 468 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

In a negligence action to recover for property damage, defendant appeals, by permission, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts dated January 13,1983, as modified an order of the Civil Court, Kings County, entered June 28,1982, so as to collaterally estop defendant from litigating the question of whether its gross negligence was the proximate cause of the July, 1977 electrical blackout. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Consolidated Edison is estopped from refuting the fact that its gross negligence proximately caused the July, 1977 blackout (Shaid v Consolidated Edison Co., 97 AD2d 610). Titone, J. P., Lazer and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover for property damage, defendant appeals, by permission, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts dated January 13,1983, as modified an order of the Civil Court, Kings County, entered June 28,1982, so as to collaterally estop defendant from litigating the question of whether its gross negligence was the proximate cause of the July, 1977 electrical blackout. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Consolidated Edison is estopped from refuting the fact that its gross negligence proximately caused the July, 1977 blackout (Shaid v Consolidated Edison Co., 97 AD2d 610). Titone, J. P., Lazer and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 791, 468 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1983.