Edmond v. Streeter Associates, Inc.

207 A.D.2d 1005, 617 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10247
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 30, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of Streeter Associates, Inc. (Streeter) for summary judgment on its third-party action for contractual and common-[1006]*1006law indemnification against R.W. Dake & Company, Inc. (Dake). Streeter is entitled to indemnification under its subcontract with Bake only if plaintiffs’ claims against Streeter arise out of or result from the performance of Bake’s work under the subcontract. There are questions of fact whether plaintiff Douglas S. Edmond was performing drywall repair work pursuant to Bake’s subcontract with Streeter or pursuant to a separate contract between Bake and another subcontractor. There are also questions of fact whether Streeter exercised supervision or control over that drywall repair work (cf., Damon v Starkweather, 185 AD2d 633). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Cicoria, J.—Indemnification.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

Edmond v. Streeter Associates, Inc., 207 A.D.2d 1005, 617 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

207 A.D.2d 1005 (Edmond v. Streeter Associates, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coburn v. Genesee River Hotel, Inc.
225 A.D.2d 1086 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)