Doe v. Madison Medical-The Private Practice Group of New York, L.L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doe v. Madison Medical-The Private Practice Group of New York, L.L.P.

21 A.D.3d 824, 800 N.Y.S.2d 844

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 824 (Doe v. Madison Medical-The Private Practice Group of New York, L.L.P.) 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

Doe v. Madison Medical-The Private Practice Group of New York, L.L.P., 21 A.D.3d 824, 800 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice L. Bowman, J.), entered October 6, 2004, dismissing the third-party complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered July 14, 2004, which, inter alia, granted third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 14, 2004, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs submissions presented a material issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment dismissal at least with respect to the February 1, 1999 incident. Third-party defendant’s motion was properly granted upon a sufficient showing, through the affidavit of its district manager, that the contract between the parties did not contain an indemnification clause. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice L. Bowman, J.), entered October 6, 2004, dismissing the third-party complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered July 14, 2004, which, inter alia, granted third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 14, 2004, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs submissions presented a material issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment dismissal at least with respect to the February 1, 1999 incident. Third-party defendant’s motion was properly granted upon a sufficient showing, through the affidavit of its district manager, that the contract between the parties did not contain an indemnification clause. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 824, 800 N.Y.S.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-madison-medical-the-private-practice-group-of-new-york-llp-nyappdiv-2005.