Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc.
Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc.
56 N.Y.2d 914; 438 N.E.2d 1145; 453 N.Y.S.2d 430; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3508
Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. We agree that plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between C.G.M. Check Cashing Corporation and Holmes Protection, Inc., for provision of a burglar alarm system. Nor can it be said as a matter of law that negligence, if any, on defendant’s part was the proximate cause of the injuries suffered.
Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.