Pietroricca v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pietroricca v. City of New York

251 A.D.2d 480, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6961

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 480 (Pietroricca v. City of New York) 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

Pietroricca v. City of New York, 251 A.D.2d 480, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant Gardner M. Bishop, Inc., and Joseph M. Sanzari, Inc., a Joint Venture, appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated June 17, 1997, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the issue of coverage should be litigated in the pending declaratory judgment action (see, Garcia v Zito, 242 AD2d 258). Consequently, the Supreme Court did not err in denying the appellant’s cross motion. Bracken, J. P., Altman, Krausman and McGinity, 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, etc., the third-party defendant Gardner M. Bishop, Inc., and Joseph M. Sanzari, Inc., a Joint Venture, appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated June 17, 1997, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the issue of coverage should be litigated in the pending declaratory judgment action (see, Garcia v Zito, 242 AD2d 258). Consequently, the Supreme Court did not err in denying the appellant’s cross motion. Bracken, J. P., Altman, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 480, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pietroricca-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack