Duke v. Duane Broad Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duke v. Duane Broad Co.

209 A.D.2d 159, 617 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10774

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 159 (Duke v. Duane Broad Co.) 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

Duke v. Duane Broad Co., 209 A.D.2d 159, 617 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.) entered on or about August 23, 1993, which denied defendants’ motion seeking to amend the pleadings converting their cross claims against defendant Admiral into a third-party action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In light of this Court’s prior determination that the jury "verdict of no liability as against defendant Admiral Elevator Corp.” was supported by the evidence and "that the probable cause of the malfunction was not under Admiral’s contractual control” (181 AD2d 589, 591, lv dismissed 79 NY2d 977, lv denied 81 NY2d 703), the IAS Court properly denied defendant landlord’s motion to convert its cross claims against Admiral into a third-party action. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.) entered on or about August 23, 1993, which denied defendants’ motion seeking to amend the pleadings converting their cross claims against defendant Admiral into a third-party action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In light of this Court’s prior determination that the jury "verdict of no liability as against defendant Admiral Elevator Corp.” was supported by the evidence and "that the probable cause of the malfunction was not under Admiral’s contractual control” (181 AD2d 589, 591, lv dismissed 79 NY2d 977, lv denied 81 NY2d 703), the IAS Court properly denied defendant landlord’s motion to convert its cross claims against Admiral into a third-party action. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 159, 617 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duke-v-duane-broad-co-nyappdiv-1994.