Case Name: Edward Murphy, Plaintiff, v. City of New York et al., Defendants, and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Respondent; Samruve Operating Corp. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Yellowstone Industries, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant-Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2006-02-07
Citations: 26 A.D.3d 190
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward Murphy, Plaintiff, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Respondent. Samruve Operating Corp. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Yellowstone Industries, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 190–191

Head Matter:
Edward Murphy, Plaintiff, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Respondent. Samruve Operating Corp. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Yellowstone Industries, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant-Appellant.
[807 NYS2d 873]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered October 5, 2005, which denied the motion of third-party defendant-appellant Yellowstone Industries for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Issues of fact as to whether the defect in the roadway was caused in some measure by Yellowstone Industries, which performed excavation work at or near the accident site, mandated the denial of Yellowstone's summary judgment motion (see Murphy v City of New York, 216 AD2d 110 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.