You are here: / / Plaintiff Was Deemed Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Next-Door...

Plaintiff Was Deemed Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Next-Door Neighbor and Chimney Repair Company— Smoke Was Entering Plaintiff’s Home

Smoke from defendant Moore’s fireplace was entering a neighbor’s (Trager’s) home.  Trager sued Moore and the defendant company (B & P) hired by Moore to fix their fireplace.  The motion court dismissed the cause of action against B & P.  The First Department reinstated the cause of action against B & P finding that Trager may have been a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Moore and B & P:

The complaint should not have been dismissed as against B & P because a question of fact exists as to whether B & P owed Linda Trager … a duty as a third-party beneficiary to B & P’s contract with the Moore defendants … . Castlepoint Ins Co v Moore, 2013 NY Slip Op 02352, 99747, 110915/09, 1st Dept, 4-9-13

 

You might also like
Stipulation of No Contact Rendered Performance of Contracts Impossible/Contracts Rescinded
MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST FOR THE CHARGE WAS TIMELY; ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE RE: EXPERT WHO DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSTALLING CONDENSERS WAS ‘ALTERATION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SECURITY DEPOSIT CANNOT BE USED BY THE LANDLORD AS AN OFFSET AGAINST UNPAID RENT, BUT CAN BE USED BY THE TENANT TO REDUCE AMOUNT OWED TO THE LANDLORD.
TERMINATION OF TENURED TEACHER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY RULE.
PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, HEAVY TRANSFORMER SHIFTED DOWNWARD STRIKING PLAINTIFF, NO SAFETY DEVICES PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BOOM TRUCK WAS 700 FEET FROM WHERE IT WAS LOADED WHEN THE BOOM STRUCK AN OVERHEAD SIGN, THE TRUCK WAS AT THE WORK SITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION ADDRESSED THE POSITION OF THE BOOM BUT NOT THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE PROVISION WAS BROADLY WORDED AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION 1ST DEPT.
MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Raised by Competing Expert Affidavits Re: Proximate Cause Policy Taken Out to Cover Original One Story Building Did Not Cover Accident...