Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc. 56 N.Y.2d 914

← Cases

Nieves v. Holmes Protection, Inc.

56 N.Y.2d 914 Court N.Y. Decision date 1982-06-15 English

Contents

Majority

p. 914
Ronald Nieves, Appellant, v Holmes Protection, Inc., Respondent.
Decided June 15, 1982
p. 915
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Edwin Kaufman for appellant.
Stephen A. Weingrad for respondent.
p. 916
OPINION 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.