Tramanto v. Richmond Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tramanto v. Richmond Manufacturing Co.

116 A.D.2d 974, 498 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51745

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.2d 974 (Tramanto v. Richmond Manufacturing Co.) 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

Tramanto v. Richmond Manufacturing Co., 116 A.D.2d 974, 498 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: The court erred in granting summary judgment to the third-party plaintiff. It is undisputed that an employee of third-party defendant signed a document when he picked up a piece of equipment, but whether his signature bound his employer to an indemnification provision on the reverse side of the document depends upon whether he had actual or apparent authority to enter into such a contract (see, Lake Steel Equip. Rental v Elia Bldg. Co., 72 AD2d 948), which is a question of fact. We pass on no other issues. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — summary judgment.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

— Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: The court erred in granting summary judgment to the third-party plaintiff. It is undisputed that an employee of third-party defendant signed a document when he picked up a piece of equipment, but whether his signature bound his employer to an indemnification provision on the reverse side of the document depends upon whether he had actual or apparent authority to enter into such a contract (see, Lake Steel Equip. Rental v Elia Bldg. Co., 72 AD2d 948), which is a question of fact. We pass on no other issues. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — summary judgment.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 974, 498 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tramanto-v-richmond-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack