Steinborn v. Desma Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinborn v. Desma Enterprises, Inc.

275 A.D.2d 742, 713 N.Y.S.2d 495, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 742 (Steinborn v. Desma Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Steinborn v. Desma Enterprises, Inc., 275 A.D.2d 742, 713 N.Y.S.2d 495, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Patchogue Ice Cream Bakery, Inc., Raymond Givergitsky, and Ziah Givergitsky appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), entered May 13, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding them 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $112,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in dismissing their cross claims for indemnification and contribution against the defendant Desma Enterprises, Inc., is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Div-Com v F. J. Zeronda, Inc., 136 AD2d 844). In any event, the contention is without merit.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Patchogue Ice Cream Bakery, Inc., Raymond Givergitsky, and Ziah Givergitsky appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), entered May 13, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding them 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $112,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in dismissing their cross claims for indemnification and contribution against the defendant Desma Enterprises, Inc., is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Div-Com v F. J. Zeronda, Inc., 136 AD2d 844). In any event, the contention is without merit.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 742, 713 N.Y.S.2d 495, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinborn-v-desma-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack