Marguess v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 07 January 1971 |
| Citation | Marguess v. City of New York, 319 N.Y.S.2d 71, 28 N.Y.2d 527 (N.Y. 1971) |
| Parties | , 267 N.E.2d 884 Maurice MARGUESS, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. CITY OF NEW YORK, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. SURFACE TRANSIT, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 30 A.D.2d 782, 291 N.Y.S.2d 956 J. Lee Rankin, New York City (Stanley Buchsbaum, Irving Genn, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
John F. Lang, New York City ( William H. Frappollo, New York City, of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent, Surface Transit, Inc. Pedestrian brought action against the City of New York, on ground that rail of trolley car tracks was raised above street and that such fact, together with hole in street, caused pedestrian to fall and injure himself. The City of New York filed a third-party complaint against the transit company.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, Bloustein, J., rendered a judgment dismissing the complaint of the pedestrian and the third-party complaint, and the pedestrian appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and held that pedestrian failed to establish any actionable negligence on the part of the City of New York. Eager,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Howlan v. Rosol
...reviewing the propriety of the notice to admit (see, Marguess v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 782, 291 N.Y.S.2d 956, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 527, 319 N.Y.S.2d 71, 267 N.E.2d 884). We also agree that if the notice was improper, it could not serve as the basis for a motion for summary judgment ( see, ......
-
Kärst v. W.P. Carey Inc.
...N.Y.S.2d 56 [1st Dept. 2010] ; Marguess v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 782, 291 N.Y.S.2d 956 [1st Dept. 1968], affd 28 N.Y.2d 527, 319 N.Y.S.2d 71, 267 N.E.2d 884 [1971] ). The proper requests related to the K–1s and emails and therefore were not new facts.1 WPC is defendant's predecessor.2......
-
Orellana v. City of New York
...v. Rosol, 139 A.D.2d 799, 526 N.Y.S.2d 674, citing Marguess v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 782, 291 N.Y.S.2d 956, affd 28 N.Y.2d 527, 319 N.Y.S.2d 71, 267 N.E.2d 884). BRACKEN, J.P., and MILLER, COPERTINO, SANTUCCI and ALTMAN, JJ., ...
-
People v. Lo Cicero
... ... PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, ... Carlo LO CICERO, Appellant ... Court of Appeals of New York ... Jan. 7, 1971 ... Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second ... ...