Runkel v. Homelsky

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: All concur except VAN VOORHIS; BURKE
• Citation: Runkel v. Homelsky, 3 N.Y.2d 857, 166 N.Y.S.2d 307, 145 N.E.2d 23 (N.Y. 1957)
• Decision Date: 03 July 1957
• Parties: , 145 N.E.2d 23 James RUNKEL et al., Respondents, v. Tinnie Venetek HOMELSKY et al., Appellants, and the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

Page 307

166 N.Y.S.2d 307

3 N.Y.2d 857, 145 N.E.2d 23

James RUNKEL et al., Respondents, v. Tinnie Venetek HOMELSKY et al., Appellants, and the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 3, 1957.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 286 App.Div. 1101, 145 N.Y.S.2d 729.

Trespassers brought action against owners of realty and the City of New York for injuries sustained by the trespassers when vacant dwelling collapsed while trespassers, who were then infants, were trespassing therein, and the City of New York filed a cross-complaint against the owners.

The Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County, Miles F. McDonald, J., 138 N.Y.S.2d 422, entered judgment in favor of the trespassers against the City of New York and dismissing the cross-complaint, and the City of New York appealed.

The Appellate Division, 286 App.Div. 1101, 145 N.Y.S.2d 729, modified and affirmed the judgment and held that evidence justified the finding that the City of New York was liable and that the owners of the realty were primarily liable, and that therefore the City of New York was entitled to recover over against the owners of the realty.

The owners of the realty appealed to the Court of Appeals, and motion was made to dismiss the appeals.

The Court of Appeals, 2 N.Y.2d 1014, 163 N.Y.S.2d 624, denied motion to dismiss appeals, and set the case down for argument...