From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fiandach v. Mindnich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 12, 1970
33 A.D.2d 1096 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Opinion

February 12, 1970

Appeal from the Monroe Special Term.

Present — Del Vecchio, J.P., Gabrielli, Moule, Bastow and Henry, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, with costs, motion granted and third-party complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from defendant for injuries received on the premises of third-party defendant. The material substantive allegations of the complaint are that defendant sat on an iron railing and fell therefrom striking plaintiff. The third-party complaint attempts to impose ultimate liability upon the owner of the premises because of the alleged slippery condition of the floor in front of the railing. This presents the initial question as to whether defendant was an active or passive tort-feasor. Examination of complaint and third-party complaint (cf. Vaughan v. Globe Sign Co., 10 A.D.2d 568, affd. 8 N.Y.2d 776) establishes that the acts charged against defendant constituted active negligence. In other words "None of the allegations in the complaint can be construed as charging [defendant] with liability without actual fault on [his] part." ( Bush Term. Bldgs. Co. v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 9 N.Y.2d 426, 430-431.) It follows that respondent may not seek recovery over from appellant.


Summaries of

Fiandach v. Mindnich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 12, 1970
33 A.D.2d 1096 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)
Case details for

Fiandach v. Mindnich

Case Details

Full title:ROY J. FIANDACH et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLOYD MINDNICH, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Feb 12, 1970

Citations

33 A.D.2d 1096 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

LA ROSA v. FURHMANN COMPANY, INC

d and in failing to properly control its use and that the injury to plaintiff was caused solely by its…

King v. Ees-Tee Restaurant, Inc.

( Putvin v. Buffalo Elec. Co., 5 N.Y.2d 447, 455.) "Acts of omission constitute active negligence as well as…