Nichols v. Forest City Pierrepont Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nichols v. Forest City Pierrepont Associates

210 A.D.2d 466, 620 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13196

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 466 (Nichols v. Forest City Pierrepont Associates) 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

Nichols v. Forest City Pierrepont Associates, 210 A.D.2d 466, 620 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated January 26, 1993, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination of the same court contained in an order dated March 18, 1992, granting the defendants third-party plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issues of contribution, common law and contractual indemnification.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the defendants third-party plaintiffs established a prima facie case for summary judgment, and, in response, the appellant did not raise any triable issues of fact, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants third-party plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated January 26, 1993, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination of the same court contained in an order dated March 18, 1992, granting the defendants third-party plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issues of contribution, common law and contractual indemnification.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the defendants third-party plaintiffs established a prima facie case for summary judgment, and, in response, the appellant did not raise any triable issues of fact, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants third-party plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 466, 620 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nichols-v-forest-city-pierrepont-associates-nyappdiv-1994.