Stewart v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stewart v. New York Telephone Co.

136 A.D.2d 907, 524 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1341

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A.D.2d 907 (Stewart v. New York Telephone 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

Stewart v. New York Telephone Co., 136 A.D.2d 907, 524 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff-respondent, in accordance with the following memorandum: County Court properly affirmed the judgment awarding plaintiff damages based upon the jury verdict. However, it erred in reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the third-party action. Liability of the third-party defendant, Niagara Mohawk, cannot be imputed solely on the basis of its admission of joint ownership of the utility pole. The third-party action is not the same cause of action set forth in the original complaint because it involves the breach of an alleged independent duty owed to the third-party plaintiff by the third-party defendant (Stafford v [908]*908Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., 280 App Div 495, 499). The record contains no proof that the third-party defendant was in any way responsible for the maintenance of the pole or the appurtenant guide wire. Without some proof of actual negligence on the part of Niagara Mohawk, the third-party complaint against it must be dismissed. (Appeals from order of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—negligence.) Present—Callahan,, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff-respondent, in accordance with the following memorandum: County Court properly affirmed the judgment awarding plaintiff damages based upon the jury verdict. However, it erred in reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the third-party action. Liability of the third-party defendant, Niagara Mohawk, cannot be imputed solely on the basis of its admission of joint ownership of the utility pole. The third-party action is not the same cause of action set forth in the original complaint because it involves the breach of an alleged independent duty owed to the third-party plaintiff by the third-party defendant (Stafford v [908]*908Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., 280 App Div 495, 499). The record contains no proof that the third-party defendant was in any way responsible for the maintenance of the pole or the appurtenant guide wire. Without some proof of actual negligence on the part of Niagara Mohawk, the third-party complaint against it must be dismissed. (Appeals from order of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—negligence.) Present—Callahan,, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.2d 907, 524 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack