Moebus v. Paul Tishman Co.

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Moebus v. Paul Tishman Co., 170 N.Y.S.2d 611, 5 A.D.2d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
• Decision Date: 20 January 1958
• Parties: Bertrand E. MOEBUS, plaintiff-respondent, v. PAUL TISHMAN CO. Inc., and I. B. Miller Contracting Corp., defendants-appellants, Horn Construction Co., defendant-respondent, and Paul Tishman General Contractor, Inc., defendant.

Page 611

170 N.Y.S.2d 611

5 A.D.2d 786

Bertrand E. MOEBUS, plaintiff-respondent, v. PAUL TISHMAN CO. Inc., and I. B. Miller Contracting Corp. defendants-appellants, Horn Construction Co. defendant-respondent, and Paul Tishman General Contractor, Inc., defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Jan. 20, 1958.

Reargument Denied March 3, 1958. See 172 N.Y.S.2d 546.

John Nielsen, New York City, for appellant.

Olin S. Nye, New York City, for respondent Moebus. Joseph J. Brophy, New York City, for respondent Horn Constr. Co.

Before NOLAN, P. J., and WENZEL, MURPHY, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries based, inter alia, on a claim of negligence, the appeal is from an order denying appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint, in which respondent Horn Construction Co. joins, and to dismiss respondent Horn's cross complaint against the appellants, for lack of diligent prosecution, and to sever the action as to defendant Paul Tishman General Contractor, Inc.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted to the extent of dismissing (1) the complaint as to appellants and respondent Horn Construction Co. and (2) dismissing the cross complaint.

In view of the failure of respondent Moebus to set forth any facts showing merit in his action...