Wineck v. Yanoff

265 A.D. 835, 37 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6038
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 19, 1942·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges acts for some of which the appellant might be responsible and for some of which the landlord might be solely responsible. The appellant would not be liable over to the defendant landlord for damages sustained by plaintiffs due solely to negligent acts of the landlord, and such acts are alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint. There is nothing in the record to show that a judgment may ever be entered in favor of plaintiffs solely for damages caused by the appellant gas company. It would seem that defendants [836] are bound to the status of joint tortfeasors, which is alleged in the complaint, and in such ease there is no right of indemnity. (Nichols v. Clark, MacMullen & Riley, Inc. 261 N. Y. 118, 122, 123; Schwartz v. Crawford, 261 App. Div. 825.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Wineck v. Yanoff, 265 A.D. 835, 37 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

265 A.D. 835 (Wineck v. Yanoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Behar v. Savard
21 F.R.D. 367 (S.D. New York, 1958)
Messaro v. Long Island Rail Road Co.
274 A.D. 939 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)
Tomko v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co.
3 F.R.D. 31 (E.D. New York, 1943)