From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prieto v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 29, 1996
232 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 29, 1996.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about May 20, 1996, which granted plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint so as to assert direct causes of action against third-party defendants and denied third-party defendants' cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Issues of fact exist as to whether construction work performed by third-party defendant Ecco created conditions in the underpass roof that eventually caused a piece of concrete to fall on plaintiffs vehicle, given Ecco's use of equipment such as jackhammers and power saws at a site that was already in a deteriorated status, and as to whether Ecco fulfilled its contractual obligation to provide equipment for the protection of vehicular traffic. Similarly, issues of fact remain as to whether third-party defendant Urbitran Associates, the resident engineer on the project, adequately performed its duties to ensure the safe performance of the contractor's work. We also find that the motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, particularly where such amendment caused no prejudice to third-party defendants.


Summaries of

Prieto v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 29, 1996
232 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Prieto v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:IRMA PRIETO, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant and Third-Party…

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

Date published: Oct 29, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
648 N.Y.S.2d 304