Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Ramada, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Ramada, Inc.

202 A.D.2d 268, 609 N.Y.S.2d 784

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 268 (Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Ramada, 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

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Ramada, Inc., 202 A.D.2d 268, 609 N.Y.S.2d 784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about August 20, 1993, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as the franchise agreement authorized defendant’s licensee to use an operating system developed by defendant, which, inter alia, requires the licensee to honor defendant’s credit cards, refer room requests to the nearest of defendant’s hotels, promote and encourage the use of defendant’s hotels internationally, and allow for regular inspection of the licensed hotel, questions of fact exist as to the degree of control exercised by defendant over the licensee which preclude summary judgment (see, Ahmad v Ennab, 158 AD2d 637, 638). Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about August 20, 1993, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as the franchise agreement authorized defendant’s licensee to use an operating system developed by defendant, which, inter alia, requires the licensee to honor defendant’s credit cards, refer room requests to the nearest of defendant’s hotels, promote and encourage the use of defendant’s hotels internationally, and allow for regular inspection of the licensed hotel, questions of fact exist as to the degree of control exercised by defendant over the licensee which preclude summary judgment (see, Ahmad v Ennab, 158 AD2d 637, 638). Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 268, 609 N.Y.S.2d 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-mutual-insurance-v-ramada-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack