Turner Construction Co. v. Alvord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turner Construction Co. v. Alvord

3 A.D.2d 707, 159 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6373

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 707 (Turner Construction Co. v. Alvord) 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

Turner Construction Co. v. Alvord, 3 A.D.2d 707, 159 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

On its face the second cause of action sets forth sufficiently the primary, active negligence of the third-party defendants, and Special Term properly denied the motion to dismiss for insufficiency, with leave to renew at the trial of the action. The indemnity provisions of the successive subcontracts, as quoted in the first cause of action, do not appear to bear out as clearly and affirmatively as would be desirable, the ultimate allegations to the effect that such indemnity provisions were for the use and benefit of the third-party plaintiff. However, a trial must be had in any event, and the allegations in the first cause of action admit of the possibility that upon the trial competent evidence may be produced that will sustain the third-party plaintiff’s theory. Order denying the motion to dismiss the complaint and the separate causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Concur — Botein, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

On its face the second cause of action sets forth sufficiently the primary, active negligence of the third-party defendants, and Special Term properly denied the motion to dismiss for insufficiency, with leave to renew at the trial of the action. The indemnity provisions of the successive subcontracts, as quoted in the first cause of action, do not appear to bear out as clearly and affirmatively as would be desirable, the ultimate allegations to the effect that such indemnity provisions were for the use and benefit of the third-party plaintiff. However, a trial must be had in any event, and the allegations in the first cause of action admit of the possibility that upon the trial competent evidence may be produced that will sustain the third-party plaintiff’s theory. Order denying the motion to dismiss the complaint and the separate causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Concur — Botein, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 707, 159 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-construction-co-v-alvord-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack