Hughes v. Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy

Decision Date27 May 1988
Docket NumberNo. 1,1
Citation529 N.Y.S.2d 658,140 A.D.2d 988
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
PartiesWilliam HUGHES and Jeanne Hughes, his wife; John Szymborski and Delores Szymborski, his wife; and Mary T. Perna, as Administratrix of the Estate of Michael D. Perna, Deceased, Appellants, v. NUSSBAUMER, CLARKE & VELZY, et al., Defendants, Nussbaumer & Clarke, Inc., Respondent, and a Third Party Action. Appeal

Pusatier, Sherman & Abbott by Kenneth Sherman, Kenmore, for appellants.

Grosse, Rossetti, Chelus & Herdzik, P.C. by Victor Rossetti, Buffalo, for respondents.

Before DILLON, P.J., and GREEN, PINE, BALIO and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

A judgment was entered after the entry of the order from which this appeal was taken. Where a prior order is subsumed within a judgment, the appeal is from the judgment, not the prior order ( Chase Manhattan Bank v. Roberts & Roberts, 63 A.D.2d 566, 404 N.Y.S.2d 608). Nevertheless, absent prejudice to the respondent, this court has the discretionary power to treat the notice of appeal as one taken from the judgment, and we conclude that our discretion should be exercised in this case (CPLR 5520[c]; Frankel v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 106 A.D.2d 542, 483 N.Y.S.2d 67; Chase Manhattan Bank v. Roberts & Roberts, supra ).

We further conclude that the judgment dismissing this action must be reversed. Hughes, Szymborski and Perna were injured on January 15, 1975 in an explosion at the old control building of the Buffalo Sewer Authority's Bird Island Sewage Treatment Plant. Perna died a few days later as a result of injuries suffered in the blast. An action was then commenced by or on behalf of the three Authority employees against Nussbaumer & Clarke, Inc., an engineering firm that performed certain design, consulting and supervisory work in 1952 in connection with the expansion of the sewage treatment facility. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant was negligent in the design or redesign of the old control building.

We find that Special Term erred by granting defendant's motion to dismiss. Although defendant demonstrated that the written contracts did not require it to perform services in connection with the old control building, the affidavit of plaintiffs' expert and the 1952 report prepared by defendant and annexed to that affidavit were adequate to raise issues of fact whether the scope of the project changed to include work on the old control building and whether defendant in fact performed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
259 cases
  • Ferguson v. Rochester City Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 5 Octubre 2012
    ...to treat the notice of appeal as valid and deem the appeal as taken from the judgment ( seeCPLR 5520[c]; Hughes v. Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 A.D.2d 988, 988, 529 N.Y.S.2d 658). With respect to the merits, we conclude that “the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [plaintiff] th......
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 30 Diciembre 2010
    ...entered in these consolidated actions ( see CPLR 5520[c]; Ponzi v. Ponzi, 45 A.D.3d 1327, 845 N.Y.S.2d 605; Hughes v. Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 A.D.2d 988, 529 N.Y.S.2d 658). On appeal, claimant contends that the court applied an inappropriate breach of duty, negligence and proximate ......
  • Sisters of Charity Hosp. of Buffalo v. Riley
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 Julio 1997
    ...that judgment, we exercise our discretion to treat the notice of appeal as one taken from the judgment (see, Hughes v. Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 A.D.2d 988, 529 N.Y.S.2d 658). THE MEDICARE The complaint alleges five causes of action. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the first a......
  • Safadjou v. Mohammadi
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 26 Abril 2013
    ...v. Rooney [appeal No. 3], 92 A.D.3d 1294, 1295, 938 N.Y.S.2d 724lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 810, 2012 WL 3743855;Hughes v. Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 A.D.2d 988, 989, 529 N.Y.S.2d 658). With respect to appeal No. 3, we conclude that the court properly permitted plaintiff to serve defendant via......
  • 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