Pyramid Co. v. King & King Architects

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pyramid Co. v. King & King Architects

175 A.D.2d 641, 573 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10179

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 175 A.D.2d 641 (Pyramid Co. v. King & King Architects) 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

Pyramid Co. v. King & King Architects, 175 A.D.2d 641, 573 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated at Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Stone, J.). We add only that, were we to agree with plaintiff’s contention that this action for money damages is premised on the "same transaction or occurrence” (CPLR 205 [a]) as that involved in its fourth-party claim against defendant for indemnification in a prior Federal court action, we would nevertheless be required to hold that this action was not timely commenced because the indemnification claim in the prior action was terminated by "a final judgment upon the merits” (CPLR 205 [a]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Den-man, Green and Lowery, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated at Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Stone, J.). We add only that, were we to agree with plaintiff’s contention that this action for money damages is premised on the "same transaction or occurrence” (CPLR 205 [a]) as that involved in its fourth-party claim against defendant for indemnification in a prior Federal court action, we would nevertheless be required to hold that this action was not timely commenced because the indemnification claim in the prior action was terminated by "a final judgment upon the merits” (CPLR 205 [a]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Den-man, Green and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D.2d 641, 573 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pyramid-co-v-king-king-architects-nyappdiv-1991.