Shichman v. Exerjian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shichman v. Exerjian

172 A.D.2d 824, 570 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351

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

DecidedApril 29, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 824 (Shichman v. Exerjian) 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

Shichman v. Exerjian, 172 A.D.2d 824, 570 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of indemnity contracts and for breach of warranty, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered November 16, 1989, as dismissed the cause of action for indemnification as asserted against all of the defendants except Tompkins & Tompkins, and which dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Arax Exerjian only in her capacity as custodian for Eugene Exerjian under the Florida Gifts to Minors Act, and against Henry Exerjian, Zepure Andreasian, Theodore Andreasian, Peter Andreasian and Marguerite Andreasian.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Brucia at the Supreme Court. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of indemnity contracts and for breach of warranty, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered November 16, 1989, as dismissed the cause of action for indemnification as asserted against all of the defendants except Tompkins & Tompkins, and which dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Arax Exerjian only in her capacity as custodian for Eugene Exerjian under the Florida Gifts to Minors Act, and against Henry Exerjian, Zepure Andreasian, Theodore Andreasian, Peter Andreasian and Marguerite Andreasian.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Brucia at the Supreme Court. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 824, 570 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shichman-v-exerjian-nyappdiv-1991.