Pinnacle Construction, Inc. v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pinnacle Construction, Inc. v. City of Syracuse

35 A.D.3d 1204, 825 N.Y.S.2d 405

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 1204 (Pinnacle Construction, Inc. v. City of Syracuse) 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

Pinnacle Construction, Inc. v. City of Syracuse, 35 A.D.3d 1204, 825 N.Y.S.2d 405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Edward D. Garni, J.), entered November 30, 2005 in a breach of contract action. The order, among other things, denied the motion of third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the amended third-party complaint and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover sums allegedly due for additional work performed in the removal and reinstallation of a booster pump station in defendant, City of Syracuse (City). The City then commenced a third-party action seeking, inter alia, contractual indemnification from third-party defendant, the engineering firm that provided consulting services on the project. Supreme Court properly denied third-party defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended third-party complaint and plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment on the amended complaint. Both third-party defendant and plaintiff failed to meet their respective initial burdens of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Present—Scudder, PJ., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.

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

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Edward D. Garni, J.), entered November 30, 2005 in a breach of contract action. The order, among other things, denied the motion of third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the amended third-party complaint and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover sums allegedly due for additional work performed in the removal and reinstallation of a booster pump station in defendant, City of Syracuse (City). The City then commenced a third-party action seeking, inter alia, contractual indemnification from third-party defendant, the engineering firm that provided consulting services on the project. Supreme Court properly denied third-party defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended third-party complaint and plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment on the amended complaint. Both third-party defendant and plaintiff failed to meet their respective initial burdens of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Present—Scudder, PJ., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 1204, 825 N.Y.S.2d 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinnacle-construction-inc-v-city-of-syracuse-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack