Oppenheim v. One School Street Professional Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oppenheim v. One School Street Professional Corp.

263 A.D.2d 472, 691 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7889

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 472 (Oppenheim v. One School Street Professional Corp.) 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

Oppenheim v. One School Street Professional Corp., 263 A.D.2d 472, 691 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated August 11, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, [473]*473the motion is granted and the third-party complaint is dismissed.

The appellant did not assume a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff by virtue of his snow-removal contract with the respondent. The appellant’s limited contractual undertaking was not a comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance obligation intended to displace the respondent’s duty as a landowner to maintain the property safely. Therefore, the third-party complaint, which sought contribution and indemnification against the appellant, is dismissed (see, Miranti v Brightwaters Racquet & Spa, 246 AD2d 518; Keshavarz v Murphy, 242 AD2d 680). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated August 11, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, [473]*473the motion is granted and the third-party complaint is dismissed.

The appellant did not assume a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff by virtue of his snow-removal contract with the respondent. The appellant’s limited contractual undertaking was not a comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance obligation intended to displace the respondent’s duty as a landowner to maintain the property safely. Therefore, the third-party complaint, which sought contribution and indemnification against the appellant, is dismissed (see, Miranti v Brightwaters Racquet & Spa, 246 AD2d 518; Keshavarz v Murphy, 242 AD2d 680). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 472, 691 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oppenheim-v-one-school-street-professional-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack