Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v. American District Telegraph Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v. American District Telegraph Co.

23 A.D.2d 739, 258 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4423

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

DecidedApril 15, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 739 (Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v. American District Telegraph 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

Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v. American District Telegraph Co., 23 A.D.2d 739, 258 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and on the facts, to the extent of striking therefrom the provision that defendants 970 Kent Ave. Corp. and Grosfeld House, Inc., have judgment against defendant American District Telegraph Company for $56.10; and as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs to plaintiff-respondent against defendants-appellants. In finding against all defendants, the Trial Justice held all defendants liable as joint tort-feasors. Since the negligence of all defendants was primary, there may be no recovery against each other on any theory of implied indemnity, (See Bush Term, Bldgs, v. Luchenbaah S. S. Go9 NT 2d 426, 430.) The contract between defendant Telegraph Company and Grosfeld House contains no express indemnity provision. Since we hold that there is no liability over in this ease, it is unnecessary to determine the effect of the limitation of liability clause in the contract. Concur — 'Breitel, J, P., Yalente, McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ,

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

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and on the facts, to the extent of striking therefrom the provision that defendants 970 Kent Ave. Corp. and Grosfeld House, Inc., have judgment against defendant American District Telegraph Company for $56.10; and as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs to plaintiff-respondent against defendants-appellants. In finding against all defendants, the Trial Justice held all defendants liable as joint tort-feasors. Since the negligence of all defendants was primary, there may be no recovery against each other on any theory of implied indemnity, (See Bush Term, Bldgs, v. Luchenbaah S. S. Go9 NT 2d 426, 430.) The contract between defendant Telegraph Company and Grosfeld House contains no express indemnity provision. Since we hold that there is no liability over in this ease, it is unnecessary to determine the effect of the limitation of liability clause in the contract. Concur — 'Breitel, J, P., Yalente, McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 739, 258 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melodee-lane-lingerie-co-v-american-district-telegraph-co-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack