Odom v. Bridge View II Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Odom v. Bridge View II Co.

291 A.D.2d 280, 737 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1605

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 280 (Odom v. Bridge View II 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

Odom v. Bridge View II Co., 291 A.D.2d 280, 737 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2001, which denied the motion of defendant Bridge View II Company for summary judgment on its cross claim for indemnification against defendant Start Elevators Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the record did not permit the motion court to conclude as a matter of law either that negligence by defendant Start proximately caused plaintiffs alleged injury or that defendant-appellant movant Bridge View was free of negligence in connection with plaintiffs harm, Bridge View’s motion for summary judgment upon its claim for common-law indemnification from Start was properly denied (see, Correia v Professional Data Mgt, 259 AD2d 60, 65; see also, Sledz v 333 E. 68 St. Corp., 254 AD2d 196). Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2001, which denied the motion of defendant Bridge View II Company for summary judgment on its cross claim for indemnification against defendant Start Elevators Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the record did not permit the motion court to conclude as a matter of law either that negligence by defendant Start proximately caused plaintiffs alleged injury or that defendant-appellant movant Bridge View was free of negligence in connection with plaintiffs harm, Bridge View’s motion for summary judgment upon its claim for common-law indemnification from Start was properly denied (see, Correia v Professional Data Mgt, 259 AD2d 60, 65; see also, Sledz v 333 E. 68 St. Corp., 254 AD2d 196). Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 280, 737 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odom-v-bridge-view-ii-co-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack