Northland Associates, Inc. v. Joseph Baldwin Constraction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Northland Associates, Inc. v. Joseph Baldwin Constraction Co.

6 A.D.3d 1214, 775 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6254

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

DecidedApril 30, 2004

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 1214 (Northland Associates, Inc. v. Joseph Baldwin Constraction 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

Northland Associates, Inc. v. Joseph Baldwin Constraction Co., 6 A.D.3d 1214, 775 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Charles T. Major, J.), entered February 14, 2003. The order granted the motion of defendant Phoenix Insurance Company, incorrectly designated as Travelers Insurance Company, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it and denied the cross motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on its claims for contractual and common-law indemnification.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in Northland Assoc, v Joseph Baldwin Constr. Co. (6 AD3d 1214 [2004]). Present—Green, J.P., Pine, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Charles T. Major, J.), entered February 14, 2003. The order granted the motion of defendant Phoenix Insurance Company, incorrectly designated as Travelers Insurance Company, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it and denied the cross motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on its claims for contractual and common-law indemnification.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in Northland Assoc, v Joseph Baldwin Constr. Co. (6 AD3d 1214 [2004]). Present—Green, J.P., Pine, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 1214, 775 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northland-associates-inc-v-joseph-baldwin-constraction-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack