Turkish Arilines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.

249 A.D.2d 463, 671 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4262
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 20, 1998·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—In an action for indemnification, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated August 26, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found the existence of a triable issue of fact sufficient to deny summary judgment (see, Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623; see also, Castignoli v Van Guard, 242 AD2d 357 [as to the plaintiffs argument concerning vouching in]). The question of whether the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint, raised for the first time in the plaintiffs reply papers, is not properly before us (see, Galatti v Alliance Funding Co., 228 AD2d 550; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536). Pizzuto, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Turkish Arilines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 463, 671 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

249 A.D.2d 463 (Turkish Arilines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnston v. Continental Broker-Dealer Corp.
287 A.D.2d 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Chavez v. Bancker Construction Corp.
272 A.D.2d 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Durrett v. Town of Brookhaven
268 A.D.2d 405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Falk v. Village of Scarsdale Zoning Board of Appeals
254 A.D.2d 358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)