Coburn v. Genesee River Hotel, Inc.

225 A.D.2d 1086, 639 N.Y.2d 756, 639 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2952
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 8, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of defendant Barrington East Development, Ltd. (Barrington) for summary judgment on its cross claim for common-law indemnification against defendant Can-Am Roofing, Inc. Barrington failed to meet its burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that it did not direct, control or supervise the roofing work performed by plaintiff Craig Coburn (see, Edmond v Streeter Assocs., 207 AD2d 1005, 1006; Stevanoff v Boys & Girls Club, 191 AD2d 1037; cf., Damon v Starkweather, 185 AD2d 633). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siragusa, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

Coburn v. Genesee River Hotel, Inc., 225 A.D.2d 1086, 639 N.Y.2d 756, 639 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 1086 (Coburn v. Genesee River Hotel, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Travelers Insurance v. Nory Construction Co.
184 Misc. 2d 366 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)