Richter v. 210 Equities Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richter v. 210 Equities Corp.

216 A.D.2d 106, 628 N.Y.S.2d 93

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

DecidedJune 15, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 106 (Richter v. 210 Equities Corp.) 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

Richter v. 210 Equities Corp., 216 A.D.2d 106, 628 N.Y.S.2d 93 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J.), entered on or about October 14, 1994, which, in relevant part, granted a motion by the fourth-party defendant for dismissal of the fourth-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As the fourth-party plaintiff insurance broker does not and cannot dispute, it cannot look to the insurer for indemnification of the amount it must pay to its client solely by reason of its own negligence (Fanta-Sea Swim Ctr. v Rabin, 113 AD2d 1011). A party will not be permitted to use artful pleading to salvage, by rewording, a cause of action that is fatally deficient (see, Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v Davis, 198 AD2d 63, 64). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J.), entered on or about October 14, 1994, which, in relevant part, granted a motion by the fourth-party defendant for dismissal of the fourth-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As the fourth-party plaintiff insurance broker does not and cannot dispute, it cannot look to the insurer for indemnification of the amount it must pay to its client solely by reason of its own negligence (Fanta-Sea Swim Ctr. v Rabin, 113 AD2d 1011). A party will not be permitted to use artful pleading to salvage, by rewording, a cause of action that is fatally deficient (see, Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v Davis, 198 AD2d 63, 64). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 106, 628 N.Y.S.2d 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richter-v-210-equities-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack