Bapst v. Southtowns Insulations

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bapst v. Southtowns Insulations

222 A.D.2d 1027, 636 N.Y.S.2d 680

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1027 (Bapst v. Southtowns Insulations) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bapst v. Southtowns Insulations, 222 A.D.2d 1027, 636 N.Y.S.2d 680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of Southtowns Insulations (defendant) for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ release of the other alleged tortfeasors did not relieve defendant of liability for plaintiffs’ injuries (see, General Obligations Law § 15-108 [a]; Gonzales v Armac Indus., 81 NY2d 1, 5). The "equitable share of the damages” among defendant and the released tortfeasors is a factual determination to be made at trial (General Obligations Law § 15-108 [a]; see, Heinsohn v Putnam Community Hosp., 65 AD2d 767). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Reargument.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of Southtowns Insulations (defendant) for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ release of the other alleged tortfeasors did not relieve defendant of liability for plaintiffs’ injuries (see, General Obligations Law § 15-108 [a]; Gonzales v Armac Indus., 81 NY2d 1, 5). The "equitable share of the damages” among defendant and the released tortfeasors is a factual determination to be made at trial (General Obligations Law § 15-108 [a]; see, Heinsohn v Putnam Community Hosp., 65 AD2d 767). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Reargument.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1027, 636 N.Y.S.2d 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bapst-v-southtowns-insulations-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack