Glickman v. Nanuet Mall Management Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glickman v. Nanuet Mall Management Co.

259 A.D.2d 518, 686 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2209

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 518 (Glickman v. Nanuet Mall Management 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

Glickman v. Nanuet Mall Management Co., 259 A.D.2d 518, 686 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Nanuet Mall Management Co., Nanuet Properties Corp., Corporate Property Investors, R.H. Macy & Co., Inc., Pembrook Management Office, Inc., Nanuet Mall Management Office, Deborah Lucas, and Robert McCarthy appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated March 2, 1998, as, upon granting the respondents’ motion for summary judgment [519]*519dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, in effect, also dismissed the appellants’ cross claim for indemnification against the respondents.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the appellants’ cross claim is reinstated.

The Supreme Court lacked authority to dismiss the appellants’ cross claim for indemnification since that issue was not presented in its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, 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, Nanuet Mall Management Co., Nanuet Properties Corp., Corporate Property Investors, R.H. Macy & Co., Inc., Pembrook Management Office, Inc., Nanuet Mall Management Office, Deborah Lucas, and Robert McCarthy appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated March 2, 1998, as, upon granting the respondents’ motion for summary judgment [519]*519dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, in effect, also dismissed the appellants’ cross claim for indemnification against the respondents.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the appellants’ cross claim is reinstated.

The Supreme Court lacked authority to dismiss the appellants’ cross claim for indemnification since that issue was not presented in its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 518, 686 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glickman-v-nanuet-mall-management-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack