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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedApril 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 463 (Turkish Arilines, Inc. v. American Airlines, 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 463, 671 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turkish-arilines-inc-v-american-airlines-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack