Standard Brands Inc. v. Arlen Trophy Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Standard Brands Inc. v. Arlen Trophy Co.

3 A.D.2d 998, 163 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5016

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

DecidedJune 18, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 998 (Standard Brands Inc. v. Arlen Trophy 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

Standard Brands Inc. v. Arlen Trophy Co., 3 A.D.2d 998, 163 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

The wrong plaintiffs plead in their complaint for damage to their property from flooding is that third-party plaintiff turned on a faucet and permitted it to overflow on the floor in premises which it occupied and controlled. The third-party complaint does not plead a valid cause of action over against the landlord as third-party defendant within the active-passive theory of liability for tort. When the pleadings are read together a joint tort between third-party plaintiff and third-party defendant is to be seen; with the acts of the third-party plaintiff constituting the main element of causation. In this situation there should not be a recovery over. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent, the motion granted, and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the third-party defendant, Plybridge Corp., dismissing the third-party complaint, with costs. Concur — Botein, J. P., Frank, Valente, McNally and Bergan, JJ. [See post, p. 1010.]

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

The wrong plaintiffs plead in their complaint for damage to their property from flooding is that third-party plaintiff turned on a faucet and permitted it to overflow on the floor in premises which it occupied and controlled. The third-party complaint does not plead a valid cause of action over against the landlord as third-party defendant within the active-passive theory of liability for tort. When the pleadings are read together a joint tort between third-party plaintiff and third-party defendant is to be seen; with the acts of the third-party plaintiff constituting the main element of causation. In this situation there should not be a recovery over. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent, the motion granted, and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the third-party defendant, Plybridge Corp., dismissing the third-party complaint, with costs. Concur — Botein, J. P., Frank, Valente, McNally and Bergan, JJ. [See post, p. 1010.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 998, 163 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-brands-inc-v-arlen-trophy-co-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack