Cubito v. Kreisberg

Decision Date11 November 1980
Citation434 N.Y.S.2d 991,51 N.Y.2d 900
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties, 415 N.E.2d 979 Rose CUBITO, Respondent, v. Gerald KREISBERG, etc. et al., Respondents, Gindele & Johnson, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the opinion by Justice James D. Hopkins at the Appellate Division (69 A.D.2d 738, 419 N.Y.S.2d 578). Question certified answered in the affirmative.

All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Ru-Val Elec. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 12 Marzo 1996
    ...client or his patient." Cubito v. Kreisberg, 69 A.D.2d 738, 419 N.Y.S.2d 578, 580-81 (App.Div.2d Dep't 1979), aff'd, 51 N.Y.2d 900, 434 N.Y.S.2d 991, 415 N.E.2d 979 (1980); see also Sears, Roebuck & Co., 43 N.Y.2d at 396-97, 401 N.Y.S.2d at 770-71, 372 N.E.2d at 558-59 (action may be descri......
  • Key Intern. Mfg., Inc. v. Morse/Diesel, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 30 Diciembre 1988
    ...895, quoting Prosser, Torts § 85, at 517; see also, Cubito v. Kreisberg, 69 A.D.2d 738, 745, 419 N.Y.S.2d 578, affd. 51 N.Y.2d 900, 434 N.Y.S.2d 991, 415 N.E.2d 979). In Alvord & Swift v. Muller Constr. Co. (NYLJ, Sept. 15, 1976, at 7, col 4, affd. 56 A.D.2d 761, 391 N.Y.S.2d 1012, on opn. ......
  • Jones v. Rochdale Vill., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 27 Junio 2012
    ...32 A.D.3d 847, 848, 821 N.Y.S.2d 617;see generally Cubito v. Kreisberg, 69 A.D.2d 738, 744–745, 419 N.Y.S.2d 578,affd.51 N.Y.2d 900, 434 N.Y.S.2d 991, 415 N.E.2d 979;cf. Gonzalez v. Clay, 83 A.D.3d 999, 999, 921 N.Y.S.2d 334). Since Zimmerman failed to meet its prima facie burden, it is unn......
  • Church v. Callanan Indus.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 21 Febrero 2001
    ...v Cornell Univ. (162 A.D.2d 922), Roberts v MacFarland Constr. Cos. (102 A.D.2d 981) and Cubito v Kreisberg (69 A.D.2d 738, affd 51 N.Y.2d 900). Notably, the "modern rule" merely dictates that an owner's approval of work performed by a contractor does not, in and of itself, absolve that con......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT