Scivetti v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

33 A.D.2d 884, 307 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2641
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 11, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 884 (Scivetti v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.) 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
Scivetti v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 33 A.D.2d 884, 307 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion to dismiss the third-party complaint granted. Memorandum: The original complaints in both actions allege that the damage was the result of an explosion which occurred by reason of the escape of natural gas supplied by respondent Power Corporation, the defendant third-party plaintiff. The latter then began a third-party action in each case against appellant Short, seeking recovery over against Short for any sums for which it might be held liable in the original actions. In both third-party complaints it is alleged that the explosion occurred by reason of the escape of gasoline from Short’s tanks. This allegation amounts to a complete defense by the defendant third-party plaintiff to the original complaint, and, if established, would relieve it of any liability to the original plaintiffs (Coffey v. Flower City Carting & Excavating Co., 2 A D 2d 191, 192, affd. 2 N Y 2d 898; Kile v. Riefler Bros. Contractors, 282 App. Div. 1000). Furthermore, the third-party complaint contains no allegation of active negligence on the part of Short. Under these circumstances there is no basis for his liability over to respondent third-party plaintiff (see Putvin v. Buffalo Elec. Co., 5 N Y 2d 447, 456; McFall v. Compagnie Maritime Belge, 304 N. Y. 314, 329-330; Schwartz v. Merola Bros. Constr. Co., 290 N. Y. 145). (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term denying motion to dismiss third-party complaints in negligence action.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Gabrielli and Henry, JJ.

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

Related

DeLuca v. Lett
173 A.D.2d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
George Cohen Agency, Inc. v. Donald S. Perlman Agency, Inc.
414 N.E.2d 689 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
George Cohen Agency, Inc. v. Donald S. Perlman Agency, Inc.
69 A.D.2d 725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
North Colonie Central School District v. MacFarland Construction Co.
60 A.D.2d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Taft v. Shaffer Trucking, Inc.
52 A.D.2d 255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A.D.2d 884, 307 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scivetti-v-niagara-mohawk-power-corp-nyappdiv-1969.