Paciorek v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y

Full title: JANUSZ PACIOREK, as Administrator ad Prosequendum of ANDREZEJ PACIOREK…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1999

259 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

684 N.Y.S.2d 911

Opinion

March 8, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that there are questions of fact as to whether the second third-party defendant breached, a duty to the second third-party plaintiff by failing to provide certain safety evaluations and recommendations, and whether the failure to do so may have contributed to the accident (see generally, City of Rochester v. Homsten Ice Rinks, 155 A.D.2d 939; cf., Prado v. Bowne Sons, 207 A.D.2d 875).

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851).

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.