Infosino v. City of New York
Rose M. Infosino, as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles J. Infosino v. City of New York, , Defendants Margaret J. Carroll, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward J. Carroll v. City of New York
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Judgment dismissing the complaints against defendant-respondent City of New York in consolidated actions for the wrongful death of six New York City firemen and personal injuries of a seventh fireman, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record fails to establish actionable negligence under the common law. (Motyka v. City of Amsterdam, 15 N Y 2d 134.) Insofar as the plaintiffs rely on section 205-a of the General Municipal Law, there is no cause of action thereon as to the City of New York in respect of its alleged failure to effect compliance with charter and code provisions relating to the construction of the parapet wall. Section 205-a imposes liability for “ failing to comply ” with requirements of statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of various governmental agencies. In the instant case, the duty of compliance was on the owner and other persons responsibile for the erection of the parapet wall, Nykanen v. City of New York (14 N Y 2d 697) is inapplicable because defendant was there charged with liability as owner of the property. Here, plaintiffs seek to charge the City of New York not as owner but for its failure to comply with its general duty to effect compliance, which is not within the scope of section 205-a.
Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.