From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 1995
216 A.D.2d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 15, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.).


The deposition testimony submitted by the parties, the work records of defendant Con Edison, and the reply affidavit of third-party defendant City Wide's supervisor raise an issue of fact whether City Wide performed resurfacing work for Con Edison in the area of the street defect that allegedly caused plaintiff's injuries.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Murphy v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 1995
216 A.D.2d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Murphy v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:CATHERINE MURPHY, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 110 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
627 N.Y.S.2d 927

Citing Cases

Murphy v. City of New York

Before: Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ., concur. Issues of fact as to whether the…