Medina v. New York Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medina v. New York Elevator Co.

250 A.D.2d 656, 671 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5499

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

DecidedMay 11, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 656 (Medina v. New York Elevator 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

Medina v. New York Elevator Co., 250 A.D.2d 656, 671 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated February 18, 1997, as denied as premature that branch of its motion which was to compel the defendant New York Elevator Co., Inc., to indemnify it against the plaintiff’s claims.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that a resolution of the issue of the respondent’s duty to indemnify the appellant must await a determination as to whether the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by any negligence on the part of the respondent (see, Bermudez v New York City Hous. Auth., 199 AD2d 356; Cichon v Brista Estates Assocs., 193 AD2d 926, 927-928; Hayes v Crane Hogan Structural Sys., 191 AD2d 978, 979).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated February 18, 1997, as denied as premature that branch of its motion which was to compel the defendant New York Elevator Co., Inc., to indemnify it against the plaintiff’s claims.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that a resolution of the issue of the respondent’s duty to indemnify the appellant must await a determination as to whether the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by any negligence on the part of the respondent (see, Bermudez v New York City Hous. Auth., 199 AD2d 356; Cichon v Brista Estates Assocs., 193 AD2d 926, 927-928; Hayes v Crane Hogan Structural Sys., 191 AD2d 978, 979).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 656, 671 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-new-york-elevator-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack