Speach v. Bouchard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Speach v. Bouchard

286 A.D.2d 998, 731 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8956

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 998 (Speach v. Bouchard) 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

Speach v. Bouchard, 286 A.D.2d 998, 731 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of third-party defendants, Town of Schroeppel (Town) and Neil Candee, the Town’s employee, seeking summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint for contribution (see, Guereschi v Bouchard, 286 AD2d 997 [decided herewith]). The contention of third-party plaintiffs that the Town and Candee are liable pursuant to General Municipal Law §§ 50-a and 50-b for the negligence of Candee is raised for the first time on appeal and therefore is not properly before us (see, Ciesinski v [999]*999Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Nicholson, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of third-party defendants, Town of Schroeppel (Town) and Neil Candee, the Town’s employee, seeking summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint for contribution (see, Guereschi v Bouchard, 286 AD2d 997 [decided herewith]). The contention of third-party plaintiffs that the Town and Candee are liable pursuant to General Municipal Law §§ 50-a and 50-b for the negligence of Candee is raised for the first time on appeal and therefore is not properly before us (see, Ciesinski v [999]*999Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Nicholson, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 998, 731 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speach-v-bouchard-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack