Rivera v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. City of New York

282 A.D.2d 444, 722 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3294

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 444 (Rivera v. City of New York) 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

Rivera v. City of New York, 282 A.D.2d 444, 722 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the second third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated May 8, 2000, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the second third-party complaint and, in effect, granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant first and second third-party plaintiff which was pursuant to CPLR 311 (b) for leave to effect service upon the second third-party defendant by serving its insurance carrier.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the second third-party action (see, Business Corporation Law § 1006 [b]; Gutman v Club Mediterranee Intl., 218 AD2d 640; Rugby Excavators v Juliano, 40 AD2d 1024).

[445]*445The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the second third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated May 8, 2000, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the second third-party complaint and, in effect, granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant first and second third-party plaintiff which was pursuant to CPLR 311 (b) for leave to effect service upon the second third-party defendant by serving its insurance carrier.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the second third-party action (see, Business Corporation Law § 1006 [b]; Gutman v Club Mediterranee Intl., 218 AD2d 640; Rugby Excavators v Juliano, 40 AD2d 1024).

[445]*445The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 444, 722 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack