Precision Electro Minerals Co., Inc. v. Dryden Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Precision Electro Minerals Co., Inc. v. Dryden Mutual Insurance

286 A.D.2d 922, 730 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8961

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 922 (Precision Electro Minerals Co., Inc. v. Dryden Mutual Insurance) 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

Precision Electro Minerals Co., Inc. v. Dryden Mutual Insurance, 286 A.D.2d 922, 730 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: [923]*923Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation, a/k/a Conrail, Conrail, Inc. (Conrail), for summary judgment on its counterclaim seeking contractual indemnification from plaintiff, Precision Electro Minerals Company, Inc. (Precision), with leave to renew following additional discovery. Whether the injuries of Conrail’s employee were caused by a “non-standard condition” within the meaning of section 7.2 of the contract between Conrail and Precision presents a factual issue that cannot be resolved on this record (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fricano, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: [923]*923Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation, a/k/a Conrail, Conrail, Inc. (Conrail), for summary judgment on its counterclaim seeking contractual indemnification from plaintiff, Precision Electro Minerals Company, Inc. (Precision), with leave to renew following additional discovery. Whether the injuries of Conrail’s employee were caused by a “non-standard condition” within the meaning of section 7.2 of the contract between Conrail and Precision presents a factual issue that cannot be resolved on this record (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fricano, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 922, 730 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/precision-electro-minerals-co-inc-v-dryden-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack