Rose Development Corp. v. Einhorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rose Development Corp. v. Einhorn

38 A.D.3d 638, 830 N.Y.S.2d 674

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 638 (Rose Development Corp. v. Einhorn) 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

Rose Development Corp. v. Einhorn, 38 A.D.3d 638, 830 N.Y.S.2d 674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of warranty of title, and a related third-party action, among other things, for contribution and/or indemnification, the third-party defendant Nations Credit Financial Services Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated February 14, 2006, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint and to dismiss the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and to dismiss the third-party complaint insofar as [639]*639asserted against it. Crane, J.E, Krausman, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of warranty of title, and a related third-party action, among other things, for contribution and/or indemnification, the third-party defendant Nations Credit Financial Services Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated February 14, 2006, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint and to dismiss the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and to dismiss the third-party complaint insofar as [639]*639asserted against it. Crane, J.E, Krausman, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 638, 830 N.Y.S.2d 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-development-corp-v-einhorn-nyappdiv-2007.