Taddeo v. 15 West 72nd Street Owners Corp.

268 A.D.2d 468, 701 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 618
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 18, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 468 (Taddeo v. 15 West 72nd Street Owners 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
Taddeo v. 15 West 72nd Street Owners Corp., 268 A.D.2d 468, 701 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 17, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment on its third-party complaint for common-law indemnification.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and the motion is granted conditionally in the event of the entry of a judgment awarding damages in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant third-party plaintiff.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff 15 West 72nd Street Owners Corp. (hereinafter 15 West), for summary judgment on the third-party complaint for common-law indemnification against Joyce Contracting Co. (hereinafter Joyce). After 15 West made out a prima facie case that it was entitled to summary judgment because it did not direct or control the plaintiffs work, Joyce failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Rivera v D'Alessandro, [469]*469248 AD2d 522; Lopez v 36-2nd J Corp., 211 AD2d 667; Richardson v Matarese, 206 AD2d 354). Although liability has not been determined in this case, the motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint for common-law indemnification is not premature and may be granted conditionally (see, Clark v 345 E. 52nd St. Owners, 245 AD2d 410; Rice v PCM Dev. Agency Co., 230 AD2d 898). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Francisco v. 201 Saw Mill River Road Development Corp.
289 A.D.2d 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Perkins v. Ken Loewentheil & Daughters, Inc.
282 A.D.2d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 A.D.2d 468, 701 N.Y.S.2d 643, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taddeo-v-15-west-72nd-street-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2000.