Case ID: ny-2d_20/html/0665-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Grazia De Rasmo, as Administratrix of the Estate of Dominic Db Rasmo, Deceased, Respondent, v. Long Island Lighting Company, Appellant, Tanwood at Massapbq.ua, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents, New York Telephone Company, Respondent, et al., Defendants. Long Island Lighting Company, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Denton Equipment, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. New York Telephone Company, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Denton Equipment, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. County of Nassau, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Denton Equipment, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. Tanwood at Massapbqua, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Denton Equipment, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
    Argued May 16, 1967;
    decided June 15, 1967.
    
      
      Francis M. Walsh and David K. Kadane for Long Island Lighting Company, appellant.
    
      David S. Konheim for Tanwood at Massapequa, Inc., appellant-respondent.
    
      Roger P. McTiernan, Desmond T. Barry and Michael R. Treanor for third-party defendant-respondent-appellant.
    
      Vincent M. Albanese and Thomas R. Newman for plaintiff-respondent.
    
      G. Wallace Bates and Kenneth J. Lucey for New York Telephone Company, appellant-respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiff against defendant Long Island Lighting Company and with costs to each third-party respondent against the corresponding third-party appellant; no opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel. Judge Van Voorhis dissents, in part, and votes to reverse and to dismiss the complaint as to defendant Tanwood upon the ground that no actionable negligence has been shown upon its part. Moreover, if defendant Tanwood were to be chargeable with negligence, as the court is holding, it would necessarily be active negligence which would preclude indemnification from the Long Island Lighting Company.