Wolf v. V. La Rosa & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolf v. V. La Rosa & Sons, Inc.

272 A.D.2d 932

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

DecidedJune 23, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 932 (Wolf v. V. La Rosa & Sons, Inc.) 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

Wolf v. V. La Rosa & Sons, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of an employee of defendant, order dismissing the third party complaint alleging that the said employee was, at the time of the accident, under the control of the third party defendant-respondent and engaged in the work of the third party defendant-respondent, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The third party defendant is not a person “who is or may be liable ” to the third party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim in the main action. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 193-a; Braxton v. Mendelson, 233 N. Y. 122; Twelfth Annual Report of N. Y. Judicial Council, 3946, pp. 192-217.) Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 977.]

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

In an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of an employee of defendant, order dismissing the third party complaint alleging that the said employee was, at the time of the accident, under the control of the third party defendant-respondent and engaged in the work of the third party defendant-respondent, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The third party defendant is not a person “who is or may be liable ” to the third party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim in the main action. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 193-a; Braxton v. Mendelson, 233 N. Y. 122; Twelfth Annual Report of N. Y. Judicial Council, 3946, pp. 192-217.) Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 977.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-v-la-rosa-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack