Solomon v. Marseilles Hotel Corp.

1 A.D.2d 766, 149 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6565

This text of 1 A.D.2d 766 (Solomon v. Marseilles Hotel 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
Solomon v. Marseilles Hotel Corp., 1 A.D.2d 766, 149 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied. The third-party complaint is legally sufficient. Only a trial of the issues can determine whether plaintiff is relying upon defendant’s actual or constructive notice that the equipment was in defective condition. In a proper case a jury may find that an act of omission was passive negligence entitling a third-party plaintiff to recover over against the defendant whose conduct caused the dangerous condition (McFall v. Compagnie Maritime Belge, 304 N. Y. 314). Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Bastow and Cox, JJ.

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

Related

McFall v. Compagnie Maritime Belge (Lloyd Royal) S. A.
304 N.Y. 314 (New York Court of Appeals, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.2d 766, 149 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-marseilles-hotel-corp-nyappdiv-1956.