Fusaro v. Sunnydale Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fusaro v. Sunnydale Estates, Inc.

221 A.D.2d 414, 634 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11986

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 414 (Fusaro v. Sunnydale Estates, Inc.) 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

Fusaro v. Sunnydale Estates, Inc., 221 A.D.2d 414, 634 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated June 30, 1994, as granted the third-party plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment against it on the issue of common-law indemnification.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[415]*415The evidence clearly establishes that the owner and the general contractors of the construction project where the infant plaintiff was injured neither controlled nor supervised the construction procedures or safety measures employed by the third-party defendant, the subcontractor. Thus, they are entitled to common-law indemnification from the third-party defendant (see, McNair v Morris Ave. Assocs., 203 AD2d 433; Edlin v Glinsky, 154 AD2d 648; see also, Kelly v Diesel Constr. Div., 35 NY2d 1). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated June 30, 1994, as granted the third-party plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment against it on the issue of common-law indemnification.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[415]*415The evidence clearly establishes that the owner and the general contractors of the construction project where the infant plaintiff was injured neither controlled nor supervised the construction procedures or safety measures employed by the third-party defendant, the subcontractor. Thus, they are entitled to common-law indemnification from the third-party defendant (see, McNair v Morris Ave. Assocs., 203 AD2d 433; Edlin v Glinsky, 154 AD2d 648; see also, Kelly v Diesel Constr. Div., 35 NY2d 1). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 414, 634 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fusaro-v-sunnydale-estates-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack