Duffy v. Chemical Bank

278 A.D.2d 102, 717 N.Y.S.2d 532, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about October 12, 1999, which, upon reargument, granted the previously denied motion of third-party defendant Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. to dismiss the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the service agreement between defendant and third-party plaintiff building owners and third-party defendant management company requiring third-party plaintiffs to purchase insurance and indemnify third-party defendant with respect to claims such as those asserted by plaintiff in the main action, the third-party action was properly dismissed (see, Santamaria v 1125 Park Ave. Corp., 238 AD2d 259). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Duffy v. Chemical Bank, 278 A.D.2d 102, 717 N.Y.S.2d 532, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

278 A.D.2d 102 (Duffy v. Chemical Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Santamaria v. 1125 Park Avenue Corp.
238 A.D.2d 259 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)