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
SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR STATEMENTS MADE WHILE A CANDIDATE (FIRST DEPT).
Homeowner’s Exemption Applied/Fact that Three Unrelated Families Lived in the Home Did Not Negate the Finding that the Home Was a Single Family Dwelling
Pat-Down Search Justified by the Objective Existence of Probable Cause to Arrest, Even Though the Officer Did Not Intend to Arrest at the Time of the Search.
Procedure for Applying to be a “Defender” in America’s Cup Regatta, as Alleged in Complaint, Constitutes an “Offer” and “Acceptance”
CEREMONIAL MARRIAGE SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN, CHILD ENTITLED TO SUPPORT.
HEARSAY STATEMENTS IN AN UNCERTIFIED, UNAUTHENTICATED REPORT FOR WHICH NO FOUNDATION WAS PROVIDED DID NOT CREATE AN ISSUE OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Judicial Review of Agency’s Action Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Explained
RES IPSA LOQUITUR NEEDN’T BE ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM OR THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THEORY OF LIABILITY, IT IS AN EVIDENTIARY RULE; NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION CAN BE INFERRED UNDER THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2026 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...