Dechnik v. Fortunato Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dechnik v. Fortunato Sons, Inc.

58 A.D.3d 793, 870 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 793 (Dechnik v. Fortunato Sons, Inc.) 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

Dechnik v. Fortunato Sons, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 793, 870 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated December 7, 2007, as granted that branch of the third-party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party causes of action for common-law indemnification and contribution.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the third-[794]*794party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party causes of action for common-law indemnification and contribution. In response to the third-party defendant’s showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, no triable issue of fact was raised (see Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc., 3 NY3d 408 [2004]; DePaola v Albany Med. Coll., 40 AD3d 678 [2007]; O’Berg v MacManus Group, Inc., 33 AD3d 599 [2006]; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, 285 AD2d 487, 487-488 [2001]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated December 7, 2007, as granted that branch of the third-party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party causes of action for common-law indemnification and contribution.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the third-[794]*794party defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party causes of action for common-law indemnification and contribution. In response to the third-party defendant’s showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, no triable issue of fact was raised (see Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc., 3 NY3d 408 [2004]; DePaola v Albany Med. Coll., 40 AD3d 678 [2007]; O’Berg v MacManus Group, Inc., 33 AD3d 599 [2006]; Fitzpatrick v Chase Manhattan Bank, 285 AD2d 487, 487-488 [2001]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 793, 870 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dechnik-v-fortunato-sons-inc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack