Ruggiero v. Mandell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruggiero v. Mandell

49 A.D.2d 892, 374 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11112

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 892 (Ruggiero v. Mandell) 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

Ruggiero v. Mandell, 49 A.D.2d 892, 374 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated February 25, 1975, which reversed an order of the District Court of the County of Suffolk, First District, entered July 16, 1974, which granted defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer so as to assert a counterclaim by way of indemnity. Order reversed, without costs, and order of the District Court reinstated. Defendants must serve their amended answer within 20 days of entry of the order to be made hereon. This court’s recent decision in Tarantola v Williams (48 AD2d 552) is dispositive of the issues raised on this appeal and requires that defendants be granted leave to amend their answer so as to plead a claim for apportionment against respondent for such share of responsibility as the latter might bear for the injuries allegedly sustained by respondent’s passenger. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur; Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur under the constraint of Tarantola v Williams (48 AD2d 552).

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated February 25, 1975, which reversed an order of the District Court of the County of Suffolk, First District, entered July 16, 1974, which granted defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer so as to assert a counterclaim by way of indemnity. Order reversed, without costs, and order of the District Court reinstated. Defendants must serve their amended answer within 20 days of entry of the order to be made hereon. This court’s recent decision in Tarantola v Williams (48 AD2d 552) is dispositive of the issues raised on this appeal and requires that defendants be granted leave to amend their answer so as to plead a claim for apportionment against respondent for such share of responsibility as the latter might bear for the injuries allegedly sustained by respondent’s passenger. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur; Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur under the constraint of Tarantola v Williams (48 AD2d 552).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 892, 374 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruggiero-v-mandell-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack