Dickstein v. Sarwil Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dickstein v. Sarwil Associates

221 A.D.2d 496, 634 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11978

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 496 (Dickstein v. Sarwil Associates) 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

Dickstein v. Sarwil Associates, 221 A.D.2d 496, 634 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an [497]*497order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered June 16, 1994, which denied as premature their motion for summary judgment against the third-party defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted on the condition that the plaintiff recover damages from the appellants in the main action.

The appellants are conditionally entitled to summary judgment, pending determination of the main action, on their claims for common-law and contractual indemnification against the third-party defendant. Any recovery against the appellants in the main action would be based solely on their vicarious liability for the negligence or wrongful acts of the third-party defendant (see, Richardson v Matarese, 206 AD2d 354; Dunlap v United Health Servs., 189 AD2d 1072). The appellants did not control, direct, or supervise the work performed by the plaintiff, an employee of the third-party defendant (see, Richardson v Matarese, supra; Brown v U.S. Vanadium Corp., 198 AD2d 863). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Altman and Florio, 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 defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an [497]*497order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered June 16, 1994, which denied as premature their motion for summary judgment against the third-party defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted on the condition that the plaintiff recover damages from the appellants in the main action.

The appellants are conditionally entitled to summary judgment, pending determination of the main action, on their claims for common-law and contractual indemnification against the third-party defendant. Any recovery against the appellants in the main action would be based solely on their vicarious liability for the negligence or wrongful acts of the third-party defendant (see, Richardson v Matarese, 206 AD2d 354; Dunlap v United Health Servs., 189 AD2d 1072). The appellants did not control, direct, or supervise the work performed by the plaintiff, an employee of the third-party defendant (see, Richardson v Matarese, supra; Brown v U.S. Vanadium Corp., 198 AD2d 863). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 496, 634 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickstein-v-sarwil-associates-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack