Page images
PDF
EPUB

25

Notice of Motion Requiring Third-Party

Plaintiff to Serve Amended Complaint

SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF BRONX

[SAME TITLES]

SIRS :

26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the complaint, answer, and third party complaint, copies of which are annexed hereto, the third party defendant, Donato and Gagliano, Inc. will move this Court at a Special Term, Part I thereof, to be held at the Court House, 161st Street and Grand Concourse, in the Borough of Bronx, City and State of New York, on the 25th day of Feb., 1958, at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for an order, pursuant to Rule 90 of the Rules of Civil Practice, requiring the third party plaintiff to serve an amended third party complaint wherein 27 it shall separately state and number the facts constituting each cause of action, namely:

A. A statement of the facts which constitute the third party plaintiff's cause of action against the third party defendant for the accident the plaintiff allegedly sustained on June 5, 1956, wherein it is claimed that the third party defendant is liable to the third party plaintiff as a result of the primary negligence of the third party defendant, and

Notice of Motion Requiring Third-Party Plaintiff

to Serve Amended Complaint

28

B. A statement of the facts which constitute the third party plaintiff's cause of action against the third party defendant for the injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained on June 5, 1956, wherein it is claimed that the third party defendant is liable to the third party plaintiff on a written indemnification agreement entered into between the third party plaintiff, and the third party defendant,

and for such other and further relief as may seem 29 just and proper. Dated: Brooklyn, New York

February 11, 1958

Yours, etc.,

BERNARD HELFENSTEIN
Attorney for Third-Party Defendant
No. 135 Remsen Street

Brooklyn 1, New York

30

To: KLONSKY & STEINMAN & HERBERT Kass, Esqs.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
220 Broadway
New York 38, New York
HAMPTON & DIETEL, Esqs.
Attorneys for Third-Party Plaintiff
76 William Street
New York 5, New York

31

Third-Party Summons Read in Support of
Motion Requiring Third-Party Plaintiff

to Serve Amended Complaint

SUPREME COURT

BRONX COUNTY

[SAME TITLES]

32

To the above-named third party defendant:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint of the third party plaintiff and the complaint of the plaintiff, copies of which are herewith served upon you, and to serve copies of your answers upon the undersigned attorneys for the third party plaintiff and upon Klonsky & Steinman and Herbert Kass, Esqs., plaintiff's attorneys, whose address is No. 220 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan, New York 38, N. Y., within twenty days after the service of this summons and third party complaint, exclusive of the day of service. In case of your failure to answer the complaint of the third party plaintiff judgment will be taken 33 against you by default for the relief demanded in the third party complaint. Dated, New York, N. Y., October 9, 1956.

Yours, etc.,
HAMPTON & DIETEL,

Attorneys for Third Party Plaintiff,
Fordham Hoisting Equipment Company, Inc.
Office and P. O. Address:
No. 76 William Street
Borough of Manhattan

New York 5, N. Y.

34

Third-Party Complaint Read in Support of
Motion Requiring Third-Party Plaintiff

to Serve Amended Complaint

SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

County OF BRONX

[SAME TITLES]

35

36

The third party plaintiff above named, by its attorneys, Hampton & Dietel, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, as follows:

1. That at all the times herein mentioned the third party plaintiff was and still is a domestic corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

2. That at all the times herein mentioned the third party defendant was and still is a domestic corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

3. That on or about the 5th day of June, 1956, the third party defendant was a general contractor engaged in the alteration or construction of a building located at 239th Street and Van Cortlandt Park South, in the Borough of Bronx, City and State of New York, for and on behalf of the Van Cort Realty Corporation.

4. That on or about the 5th day of June, 1956, one Albert Smith was an employee of the third party defendant, engaged in the operation of certain hoisting equipment leased by the third party plaintiff to the third party defendant.

Third-Party Complaint Read in Support of
Motion Requiring Third-Party Plaintiff

to Serve Amended Complaint

37

5. That on or about March 12, 1956, the third party plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the third party defendant, whereby for a consideration the third party defendant rented from the third party plaintiff a plaster bucket outfit with gasoline motor hoist.

6. That the lease agreement herein referred to provides, in part, as follows:

“LESSOR hereby agrees to deliver all equipment 38
and materials in good working condition and
make all necessary repairs to the said equip-
ment and materials which become damaged
and disrepaired by natural wear and tear due
to their normal and reasonable use provided
said repairs be made with LESSOR's own shop
workers.

*

“That the hoisting equipment shall not be used
for the purpose of carrying persons, but shall
be used solely for the purpose of carrying,
raising and lowering of building materials.

39

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

“To keep free and harmless LESSOR from lia-
bility for any property damage and personal
injury caused indirectly or directly, by the
leased equipment and materials while under
the control and custody of the LESSEE.”

7. That on or about June 5, 1956, the hoisting equipment hereinabove described was in the exclusive possession and control and operation of the third party defendant, its agents, servants or employees.

« PreviousContinue »