Faussete v. Starr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Faussete v. Starr

245 A.D.2d 108, 664 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12924

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 108 (Faussete v. Starr) 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

Faussete v. Starr, 245 A.D.2d 108, 664 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants-appellants’ cross claim for indemnification or contribution, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellants’ cross claim against respondents was properly dismissed upon plaintiffs sworn statement that he was injured on appellants’ property, not, as he originally alleged, on respondents’ property; appellants’ failure to come forward with evidence to the contrary; and plaintiffs discontinuance with prejudice as against respondents. Since the accident could not have occurred at both locations, there is no possibility that both appellants and respondents contributed to plaintiffs injuries, and therefore no possible right to contribution (see, Stone v Williams, 64 NY2d 639, 642; Smith v Sapienza, 52 NY2d 82, 87). Appellants will have ample opportunity to prove that the accident did not occur on their property, in which event they will not be held liable, and there will be no need for contribution from respondents or anyone else. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants-appellants’ cross claim for indemnification or contribution, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellants’ cross claim against respondents was properly dismissed upon plaintiffs sworn statement that he was injured on appellants’ property, not, as he originally alleged, on respondents’ property; appellants’ failure to come forward with evidence to the contrary; and plaintiffs discontinuance with prejudice as against respondents. Since the accident could not have occurred at both locations, there is no possibility that both appellants and respondents contributed to plaintiffs injuries, and therefore no possible right to contribution (see, Stone v Williams, 64 NY2d 639, 642; Smith v Sapienza, 52 NY2d 82, 87). Appellants will have ample opportunity to prove that the accident did not occur on their property, in which event they will not be held liable, and there will be no need for contribution from respondents or anyone else. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 108, 664 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faussete-v-starr-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack