New York Court of Appeals, 1950

Nicholas Di Menna & Sons, Inc. v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 1, 1950

301 N.Y. 118; 92 N.E.2d 918

Cases that cite this one

57 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

North Shore Sewer And Water, Inc. v. Corbetta Construction Co. (7th Cir. 1968)
North Shore Sewer & Water, Inc. v. Corbetta Construction Co. (7th Cir. 1968)
Wanger v. Zeh (New York Supreme Court 1965)
N.S. v. T.S. (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County 2024)
N.S. v. T.S. (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County 2024)
Morette v. Kemper, Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance (New York Supreme Court 2012)
Burger v. Burger (New York Supreme Court 2012)
Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Auto Park, Inc. v. Bugdaycay (Civil Court of the City of New York 2004)
Forman v. Federal Express Corp. (Civil Court of the City of New York 2003)
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. (Civil Court of the City of New York 2003)
Wilson v. Leisure Time Recreation, Inc. (Civil Court of the City of New York 2002)
19 W. 36th Holding Corp. v. Parker (Civil Court of the City of New York 2002)
General Electric Capital Corp. v. National Tractor Trailer School, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1997)
Ramsammy v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Wyndham Co. v. Wyndham Hotel Co. (New York Supreme Court 1992)
In re the Estate of D'Angelo (New York Surrogate's Court 1988)
Doin v. North American Carbide of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Rowan v. Brady (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Gaynor v. Town of Hoosick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
National Bank v. Gregory (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Chemical Bank New York Trust Co. v. Liebman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
Capra v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (N.Y. 1972)
Fleck v. Perla (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The judgment appealed from should be modified by reversing so much thereof as dismissed the second cause of action alleged in the complaint as against the defendant, City of New York, and as to such cause of action the motion for dismissal should be denied. The judgment appealed from is otherwise affirmed, with costs in this court to the plaintiff. We deem the allegations of the second cause sufficient. It is asserted that the city was negligent in failing to call the contractor’s attention to the defective and dilapidated condition of a sanitary sewer line located adjacent to but outside the project limits and which was indicated on the contract plans as “ Not to be Disturbed ”. Because of its defective condition leaks flooded the excavation work with sanitary flow causing the alleged damage. Under such circumstances, it may not be said that an allegation of lack of knowledge, by the city of its defective and dilapidated condition presents such a complete defense within the terms of the contract forbidding the making of any claim by the contractor for damages due to the' segment block sewer not being in condition as contemplated or for its *121breaking, as to render the second alleged cause of action insufficient in law. At a trial it might well be shown that the city knew or should have known of such defective condition and that because of it the work was made more difficult and expensive than it would have been under the original contract (Horgan v. Mayor of City of N. Y., 160 N. Y. 516; Gearty v. Mayor of City of N. Y., 171 N. Y. 61; Sundstrom v. State of New York, 213 N. Y. 68). In any event, the plaintiff at the very least should be afforded an opportunity to examine the city’s witnesses on the subject (Pilkington Co. v. City of New York, 211 App. Div. 558; 216 App. Div. 756, affd. 243 N. Y. 638). To grant summary judgment it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented (Chelsea Exch. Bank v. Munoz, 202 App. Div. 702; Fredburn Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 280 N. Y. 402).

The judgments should be modified in accordance with the opinion herein, and as so modified affirmed, with costs in this court to the plaintiff.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.