Rivera v. Ray Bari Pizza West 69th Street

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Ray Bari Pizza West 69th Street

50 A.D.3d 607, 855 N.Y.S.2d 367

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

DecidedApril 29, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 607 (Rivera v. Ray Bari Pizza West 69th Street) 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. Ray Bari Pizza West 69th Street, 50 A.D.3d 607, 855 N.Y.S.2d 367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered November 1, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted summary judgment to defendant Nevada Towers Associates (Nevada) on its claims for defense and indemnification against defendant Ray Bari Pizza West 69th Street, doing business as Ray Bari Pizza (Ray Bari), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given that the parties are sophisticated commercial entities and that Ray Bari was obligated under the lease to procure insurance, the lease indemnification provision does not violate General Obligations Law § 5-321 (Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp., 7 NY3d 412, 419 [2006]; Rubin v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 49 AD3d 422 [2008]). We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered November 1, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted summary judgment to defendant Nevada Towers Associates (Nevada) on its claims for defense and indemnification against defendant Ray Bari Pizza West 69th Street, doing business as Ray Bari Pizza (Ray Bari), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given that the parties are sophisticated commercial entities and that Ray Bari was obligated under the lease to procure insurance, the lease indemnification provision does not violate General Obligations Law § 5-321 (Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp., 7 NY3d 412, 419 [2006]; Rubin v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 49 AD3d 422 [2008]). We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 607, 855 N.Y.S.2d 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-ray-bari-pizza-west-69th-street-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack