Opinion · New York Court of Appeals
Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc.
Nieves v. Holmes Prot., Inc., 56 N.Y.2d 914 (New York Court of Appeals 1982)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- New York Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1982-06-15
- Topic
- general
*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.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 4 opinions
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.