White v. William Kennedy Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

White v. William Kennedy Construction Co.

248 A.D. 829, 290 N.Y.S. 839, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7519

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 829 (White v. William Kennedy Construction 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

White v. William Kennedy Construction Co., 248 A.D. 829, 290 N.Y.S. 839, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for injury and damage to the plaintiffs’ building by reason of the alleged negligence and the wrongful trespass of the defendant, the plaintiffs failed to make proof that the defendant construction company was in charge of the work of demolition on the adjacent premises. Judgment in so far as it dismisses without prejudice the complaint as to defendant William Kennedy Construction Co., affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial after judgment had been entered, dismissed, without costs. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur; Taylor, J., dissents, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the proofs established prima facie that the respondent, coneededly having the contract for demolition, was actually doing the work. The admission implicit in the remark of respondent’s trial counsel, “ at the time Kennedy began working there,” with the other relevant proofs submitted by plaintiffs, was sufficient to require the denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of plaintiffs’ proofs.

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

In an action for injury and damage to the plaintiffs’ building by reason of the alleged negligence and the wrongful trespass of the defendant, the plaintiffs failed to make proof that the defendant construction company was in charge of the work of demolition on the adjacent premises. Judgment in so far as it dismisses without prejudice the complaint as to defendant William Kennedy Construction Co., affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial after judgment had been entered, dismissed, without costs. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur; Taylor, J., dissents, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the proofs established prima facie that the respondent, coneededly having the contract for demolition, was actually doing the work. The admission implicit in the remark of respondent’s trial counsel, “ at the time Kennedy began working there,” with the other relevant proofs submitted by plaintiffs, was sufficient to require the denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of plaintiffs’ proofs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 829, 290 N.Y.S. 839, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-william-kennedy-construction-co-nyappdiv-1936.