Case Name: THE CITY OF SUMMIT, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HORTON CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, ETC., CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ETC., AND TOWNVIEW MANOR A, A CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ETC., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES BORINSKY, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1962-10-04
Citations: 76 N.J. Super. 346
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE CITY OF SUMMIT, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HORTON CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, ETC., CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ETC., AND TOWNVIEW MANOR A, A CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ETC., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES BORINSKY, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 346–346

Head Matter:
THE CITY OF SUMMIT, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HORTON CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, ETC., CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ETC., AND TOWNVIEW MANOR A, A CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ETC., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES BORINSKY, ET AL., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued September 24, 1962
Decided October 4, 1962
Before Judges Goldmann, Preund and Poley.
Mr. Peter 0. Triolo argued the cause for appellant.
Mr. Julius Stein argued the cause for defendants-respond-ends and third-party defendants-respondents (Messrs. Stein and Stein, attorneys).
Mr. Louis Auerbacher, Jr. argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent Continental Casualty Company.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
After reviewing the lengthy record, and considering the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that the judgment must be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed by Judge Mintz in the Chancery Division, 70 N. J. Super. 529 (1961).