Rago v. Nationwide Insurance

110 A.D.2d 831, 488 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48730
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 22, 1985·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The third-party complaints state valid causes of action for indemnification and contribution. Moreover, it appears that the defendants’ delays in initiating the third-party actions were not attributable to a lack of diligence but to the difficulties inherent in identifying the various ownership interests involved in the shopping mall where the accident giving rise to the main action occurred. Inasmuch as the factual and legal issues raised by the third-party actions are not overly complex and are closely related to the questions involved in the underlying action, the denial of a severance was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Fries v Sid Tool Co., 90 AD2d 512; Johnston Prods. Corp. v ATI, Inc., 87 AD2d 604). Finally, we note that the court’s determination to allow the third-party defendants additional time for discovery but to restore the action to the Trial Calendar [832] and set a date certain for the completion of such discovery, adequately protected the interests of all the parties (see, CPLR 1010; Fries v Sid Tool Co., supra). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Thompson and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Rago v. Nationwide Insurance, 110 A.D.2d 831, 488 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

110 A.D.2d 831 (Rago v. Nationwide Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Calcanes v. City of New York
154 A.D.2d 327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Leavitt v. New York City Transit Authority
111 A.D.2d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)