Legal Opinion
50 New Walden, Inc. v. Federal Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 18, 1963PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMichael Catalano, J.
The plaintiffs would amend their complaint, without calendar prejudice.
This action is brought to recover substantial damages because of the collapse of the plaintiffs’ bowling alley in Cheektowaga, New York. The defendant, Frank J. Cartwright (herein called “ Frank”), was a duly licensed civil engineer, selected by the general contractor, Cassiol Construction Company, Inc. (herein called “ Cassiol ”), to design, fabricate, erect and install trusses and roofs, and the defendant, Cartwright & Morrison, Inc. (herein called “ Cartwright ”), was similarly selected.
The amendments would include…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Lawrence v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Seaver v. . RansomNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Chysky v. . Drake Brothers Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Rozny v. MarnulIllinois Supreme Court · 1969
- Morrow v. Caloric Appliance CorporationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1963
- Rhodes Pharmacal Co. v. Continental Can Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1966
- Sabath v. MansfieldAppellate Court of Illinois · 1978
- Mazzuka v. Bank of North AmericaCivil Court of the City of New York · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.