Beth Israel Hospital North v. Castle Oil Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beth Israel Hospital North v. Castle Oil Corp.

194 A.D.2d 499, 599 N.Y.S.2d 289

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

DecidedJune 29, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 499 (Beth Israel Hospital North v. Castle Oil Corp.) 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

Beth Israel Hospital North v. Castle Oil Corp., 194 A.D.2d 499, 599 N.Y.S.2d 289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered October 20, 1992, which, in an action for indemnification of money paid to the State to remediate an oil spill, denied plaintiff’s motion and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Both sides have failed to sustain their burdens as proponents of a motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). Summary judgment was properly denied plaintiff since there are several issues of fact, including, inter alia, whether the cause of the damage was defendant’s act in filling the oil tanks on February 15, 1988 or were there other possible sources of the spill, such as plaintiff’s acts or the pre-existing leaky condition of the tanks. Further, there is an issue as to the adequacy of plaintiff’s notice to defendant regarding the commencement of the enforcement action by the State of New York against the plaintiff. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered October 20, 1992, which, in an action for indemnification of money paid to the State to remediate an oil spill, denied plaintiff’s motion and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Both sides have failed to sustain their burdens as proponents of a motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). Summary judgment was properly denied plaintiff since there are several issues of fact, including, inter alia, whether the cause of the damage was defendant’s act in filling the oil tanks on February 15, 1988 or were there other possible sources of the spill, such as plaintiff’s acts or the pre-existing leaky condition of the tanks. Further, there is an issue as to the adequacy of plaintiff’s notice to defendant regarding the commencement of the enforcement action by the State of New York against the plaintiff. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 499, 599 N.Y.S.2d 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beth-israel-hospital-north-v-castle-oil-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack