Caton v. Doug Urban Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caton v. Doug Urban Construction Co.

109 A.D.2d 1100, 487 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47597

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.2d 1100 (Caton v. Doug Urban Construction Co.) 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

Caton v. Doug Urban Construction Co., 109 A.D.2d 1100, 487 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This is an action for common-law indemnity by plaintiffs, who had previously paid a default judgment [1101]*1101taken against them in an action by a person who had fallen off the roof of plaintiffs’ house. As a result of plaintiffs’ failure to respond adequately to defendant’s interrogatories, plaintiffs were precluded from establishing the reasonableness of the amount of the default judgment, a necessary element of its cause of action (see, Depo v Marine Midland Bank, 79 AD2d 846, affd 54 NY2d 943; Le Frois Foods Corp. v Policy Advancing Corp., 59 AD2d 1013). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Mintz, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This is an action for common-law indemnity by plaintiffs, who had previously paid a default judgment [1101]*1101taken against them in an action by a person who had fallen off the roof of plaintiffs’ house. As a result of plaintiffs’ failure to respond adequately to defendant’s interrogatories, plaintiffs were precluded from establishing the reasonableness of the amount of the default judgment, a necessary element of its cause of action (see, Depo v Marine Midland Bank, 79 AD2d 846, affd 54 NY2d 943; Le Frois Foods Corp. v Policy Advancing Corp., 59 AD2d 1013). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Mintz, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 1100, 487 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caton-v-doug-urban-construction-co-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack