Kadoic v. 1154 First Avenue Tenants Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kadoic v. 1154 First Avenue Tenants Corp.

272 A.D.2d 158, 708 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5397

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

DecidedMay 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 158 (Kadoic v. 1154 First Avenue Tenants Corp.) 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

Kadoic v. 1154 First Avenue Tenants Corp., 272 A.D.2d 158, 708 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered July 13, 1999, which, in an action by a laborer for personal injuries, insofar as appealed from, denied third-party defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There being no dispute on appeal that the third-party action cannot be maintained if appellant is a sole proprietorship owned by plaintiff, the motion was properly denied on the ground that an issue of fact exists as to whether appellant is a sole proprietorship or a partnership. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered July 13, 1999, which, in an action by a laborer for personal injuries, insofar as appealed from, denied third-party defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There being no dispute on appeal that the third-party action cannot be maintained if appellant is a sole proprietorship owned by plaintiff, the motion was properly denied on the ground that an issue of fact exists as to whether appellant is a sole proprietorship or a partnership. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 158, 708 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kadoic-v-1154-first-avenue-tenants-corp-nyappdiv-2000.