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
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF GAVE CONFLICTING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL, ONE OF THOSE DESCRIPTIONS WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT THAT THE FALL OCCURRED IN AN AREA WHICH HAD BEEN EXCAVATED (FIRST DEPT).
Wrong Incident-Address in Notice of Claim (Not Intended to Mislead and Not Resulting in Prejudice to Defendant) Can Be Corrected​
FOR PURPOSES OF THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE, A LANDLORD AND A TENANT ARE NOT “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FIRST DEPT).
No Exigent Circumstances to Justify Search of a Closed Container in Defendant’s Possession Upon His Arrest for Minor Non Violent Offenses to Which the Contents of the Bag Could Have Had No Connection
THE MOTION TO STRIKE INFLAMMATORY ALLEGATIONS FROM THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; WHETHER EVIDENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLEGATIONS IS DISCOVERABLE OR ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL IS NOT AFFECTED BY GRANTING THE MOTION TO STRIKE (FIRST DEPT).
STANDING ON AN INVERTED BUCKET CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT” HEIGHT-DIFFERENTIAL FOR PURPOSES OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); INJURY WHILE PREVENTING A FALL IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, DEFENDANT ALLEGED COUNSEL’S ADVICE ON THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS ERRONEOUS 1ST DEPT.
Worker Struck by Falling Brick Entitled to Summary Judgment/Comparative Negligence Is Not a Defense to a Labor Law 240(1) Claim

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...