Mejia v. Levenbaum

57 A.D.3d 216, 868 N.Y.2d 58
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 2, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 216 (Mejia v. Levenbaum) 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
Mejia v. Levenbaum, 57 A.D.3d 216, 868 N.Y.2d 58 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

This Court previously determined that Levenbaum bears no liability to plaintiff and that Plum Third, which is owned by Tam Restaurants, directed plaintiffs work at the time that he was injured (30 AD3d 262 [2006]). Accordingly, since Levenbaum is free from active negligence and Plum Third had direct control over the work giving rise to the injury, summary judgment on the issue of Levenbaum’s cross claim for common-law indemnification against Tam Restaurants was not premature (see Rodriguez v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 234 AD2d 156 [1996]; see also Tighe v Hennegan Constr. Co., Inc., 48 AD3d 201, 202 [2008]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Catterson, Renwiek and Freedman, JJ.

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

Related

Picchione v. Sweet Construction Corp.
60 A.D.3d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 A.D.3d 216, 868 N.Y.2d 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mejia-v-levenbaum-nyappdiv-2008.