Parseghian v. Golden Plum Fruit Corp.

186 A.D.2d 546, 588 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11154
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 5, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 546 (Parseghian v. Golden Plum Fruit 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
Parseghian v. Golden Plum Fruit Corp., 186 A.D.2d 546, 588 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party plaintiff Dav Gold Realty Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), dated October 29, 1990, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant Mee-Mee Produce, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant landlord, Dav Gold Realty Corp., seeks indemnity from its tenant Mee-Mee Produce, Inc., for damages paid to the plaintiff in settlement of the plaintiff’s claim that she was injured when she slipped on lettuce leaves and fell while present on the subject premises. However, "where a party voluntarily settles a claim, he must demonstrate that he was legally liable to the party whom he paid in order to recover over against an indemnitor” (Abrams v Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 171 AD2d 930, 931; see also, Dunn v Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 175 NY 214; Codling v Paglia, 38 AD2d 154, mod on other grounds 32 NY2d 330). Under the circumstances of this case, as a matter of law, the landlord was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries (see, Silver v Brodsky, 112 AD2d 213; Shaya v Piacquaddio, 67 AD2d 969; see generally, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607; Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157 AD2d 264). Therefore, the tenant was properly granted summary judgment dismissing the indemnity claim. Mangano, P. J., Harwood, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Midura v. 740 Corp. LLC
31 A.D.3d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Acunto v. Conklin
285 A.D.2d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Jemal v. Lucky Insurance
260 A.D.2d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Callahan v. P.J. Carlin Construction Co.
223 A.D.2d 459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
G.D. Searle & Co. v. Medicore Communications, Inc.
843 F. Supp. 895 (S.D. New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 A.D.2d 546, 588 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parseghian-v-golden-plum-fruit-corp-nyappdiv-1992.