Legal Opinion
Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 15, 1982PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*916OPINION 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.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hill v. Sonitrol of Southwestern Ohio, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- World Trade Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Lido Knitting Mills, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Johnson v. Robert Bruce McLane Assocs., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- World Trade Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Lido Knitting Mills, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990