Rosenfeld v. Virginia Dare Stores Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenfeld v. Virginia Dare Stores Corp.

22 A.D.2d 880, 254 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2521

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 880 (Rosenfeld v. Virginia Dare Stores 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

Rosenfeld v. Virginia Dare Stores Corp., 22 A.D.2d 880, 254 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on June 5, 1964, granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and of defendant, the Prudential Insurance Company of America, and the judgment entered thereon on August 4, 1964 following an assessment of damages, Unanimously modified on the law to the extent of directing that defendants-appellants have judgment over against defendant Wilbur-Rogers, Inc., and, as so modified, [881]*881affirmed, with $50 costs to respondents. The record demonstrates that Wilbur-Rogers, Inc., agreed to indemnify appellants and hold them harmless from any liability from a default by Wilbur-Rogers, Inc., under the lease. There is no issue as to the default and resultant liability of Wilbur-Rogers, Inc. Consequently, appellants were entitled to judgment over against Wilbur-Rogers, Inc. as demanded in the cross claim of their answer. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Yalente, Eager and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on June 5, 1964, granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and of defendant, the Prudential Insurance Company of America, and the judgment entered thereon on August 4, 1964 following an assessment of damages, Unanimously modified on the law to the extent of directing that defendants-appellants have judgment over against defendant Wilbur-Rogers, Inc., and, as so modified, [881]*881affirmed, with $50 costs to respondents. The record demonstrates that Wilbur-Rogers, Inc., agreed to indemnify appellants and hold them harmless from any liability from a default by Wilbur-Rogers, Inc., under the lease. There is no issue as to the default and resultant liability of Wilbur-Rogers, Inc. Consequently, appellants were entitled to judgment over against Wilbur-Rogers, Inc. as demanded in the cross claim of their answer. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Yalente, Eager and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 880, 254 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenfeld-v-virginia-dare-stores-corp-nyappdiv-1964.