From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blancovitch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1987
131 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

June 1, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Special Term's order dismissing the complaint should not be disturbed. A municipality owes no special duty to particular persons to provide an adequate water supply to fight fires or to keep its water system in proper repair for fire-fighting purposes (see, Steitz v City of Beacon, 295 N.Y. 51; Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160).

Further, the plaintiffs' cross motion was properly denied, as a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 stays disclosure until the determination of the motion unless the court orders otherwise (see, CPLR 3214 [b]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3214:2, at 856). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Blancovitch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1987
131 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Blancovitch v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ORLANDO BLANCOVITCH, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1987

Citations

131 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Wells v. City of Lynchburg

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in this regard. See, e.g., O'Dell v. City ofBreckenridge, 859 S.W.2d…

U.S. Automobile v. Wiley

Thus, O'Brian and Smith should have been awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross…