Runkel v. Homelsky
| Decision Date | 14 November 1955 |
| Citation | 286 A.D. 1101,145 N.Y.S.2d 729 |
| Parties | James RUNKEL and Patrick Haughney, Jr., plaintiffs-respondents, v. Tinnie Venetek HOMELSKY and Zena Venetek Zakheim, defendants-respondents, and The City of New York, defendant-appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Anthony Curreri, New York City, for appellant.
George S. Pickwick, New York City, for respondents, Venetek Homelsky and Zakheim.
Before MacCRATE, Acting P. J., and SCHMIDT, BELDOCK, MURPHY and UGHETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of the entire collapse of a vacant two-family dwelling when plaintiffs-respondents, at that time infants, were trespassing therein. The collapse was occasioned by the failure of the owners and the City of New York, respectively defendants-respondents and appellant herein, to render the building safe and secure or to demolish it. Over the city's objections, plaintiffs-respondents discontinued the action against the owners prior to the submission of the case to the jury, and the court, at the conclusion of the evidence but before charging the jury, dismissed the city's cross complaint against the owners. The city appeals from the judgment, as resettled, 138 N.Y.S.2d 422, entered on the jury's verdict in favor of plaintiffs-respondents against it and dismissing its cross complaint against defendants-respondents.
Resettled judgment modified on the law by striking out that portion which dismissed the cross complaint and by substituting therefor a provision granting judgment in favor of appellant against defendants-respondents as prayed for in the cross complaint, and, as so modified, unanimously affirmed, with costs to appellant payable by defendants-respondents. The findings of fact implicit in the jury's verdict are affirmed.
The facts adduced on the trial were sufficient to justify a finding that appellant was liable under the principles laid down in the previous appeal in this matter. Runkel v. City of New York, 282 App.Div. 173, 123 N.Y.S.2d 485. We have given careful attention to the request that certain of these principles be reconsidered and find no basis for altering the determination heretofore made. On the other hand, under the applicable provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York and the Multiple Dwelling Law, the acts of defendants-respondents in permitting to exist on their property what the evidence warranted the jury in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D'Ambrosio v. City of New York
...v. Wallerstein, 51 A.D.2d 579, 378 N.Y.S.2d 750 Wylie v. City of New York, 286 App.Div. 720, 146 N.Y.S.2d 207 Runkel v. Homelsky, 286 App.Div. 1101, 145 N.Y.S.2d 729 Ohrt v. City of Buffalo, 281 App.Div. 344, 345, 119 N.Y.S.2d 793 Nickelsburg v. City of New York, 263 App.Div. 625, 34 N.Y.S.......
-
Wilson v. Nepstad
...in Runkel v. City of New York, 282 App.Div. 173, 177, 123 N.Y.S.2d 485, 489 (1953), Appeal on remand sub nom. Runkel v. Homelsky, 286 A.D. 1101, 145 N.Y.S.2d 729 (1955), Aff'd, 3 N.Y.2d 857, 166 N.Y.S.2d 307, 145 N.E.2d 23 (1957) ("Plaintiffs (injured by collapse of three-story multiple dwe......
-
Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Park
...City of New York, 282 App.Div. 173, 123 N.Y.S.2d 485 (1953), affirmed on second appeal on other grounds sub nom., Runkel v. Homelsky, 286 App.Div. 1101, 145 N.Y.S.2d 729 (1955); Campbell v. City of Bellevue, 85 Wash.2d 1, 530 P.2d 234 (1975), second appeal on other grounds, 86 Wash.2d 572, ......
-
Hage v. Stade
...of New York, 282 App. Div. 173, 123 N.Y.S.2d 485 (1953), affirmed on second appeal on other grounds sub nom., Runkel v. Homelsky, 286 App.Div. 1101, 145 N.Y.S.2d 729 (1955), involved a suit against a city for injuries sustained by children when an abandoned building collapsed. A city inspec......