Trinity Petroleum Systems, Inc. v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trinity Petroleum Systems, Inc. v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co.

262 A.D.2d 478, 691 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6656

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 478 (Trinity Petroleum Systems, Inc. v. L.A. Wenger Contracting 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

Trinity Petroleum Systems, Inc. v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., 262 A.D.2d 478, 691 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated September 15, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion to reargue its previous cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim and, upon reargument, granted the cross motion and dismissed the counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contentions on appeal that the counterclaim alleged a valid indemnification claim and that General Obligations Law § 15-108 does not bar claims for indemnification, were not raised before the Supreme Court and, therefore, are unpreserved for appellate review (see, Jenkins v Meredith Ave. Assocs., 238 AD2d 477; Dannhauser v County of Suffolk, 216 AD2d 514). Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated September 15, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion to reargue its previous cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim and, upon reargument, granted the cross motion and dismissed the counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contentions on appeal that the counterclaim alleged a valid indemnification claim and that General Obligations Law § 15-108 does not bar claims for indemnification, were not raised before the Supreme Court and, therefore, are unpreserved for appellate review (see, Jenkins v Meredith Ave. Assocs., 238 AD2d 477; Dannhauser v County of Suffolk, 216 AD2d 514). Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 478, 691 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trinity-petroleum-systems-inc-v-la-wenger-contracting-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack