Tyrrell v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tyrrell v. Hoffman

276 A.D.2d 393, 715 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10749

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 393 (Tyrrell v. Hoffman) 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

Tyrrell v. Hoffman, 276 A.D.2d 393, 715 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about October 1, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, denied that branch of defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of defendant-respondent’s cross claim for common-law indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing defendant-respondent contractor’s cross claim for indemnification was properly denied. The movant, defendant-appellant subcontractor, failed to adduce evidence of negligence on the part of defendant-respondent contributing to plaintiffs’ harm or evidence of his own freedom from negligence contributing to plaintiffs’ harm, and thereby failed to make out a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about October 1, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, denied that branch of defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of defendant-respondent’s cross claim for common-law indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing defendant-respondent contractor’s cross claim for indemnification was properly denied. The movant, defendant-appellant subcontractor, failed to adduce evidence of negligence on the part of defendant-respondent contributing to plaintiffs’ harm or evidence of his own freedom from negligence contributing to plaintiffs’ harm, and thereby failed to make out a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 393, 715 N.Y.S.2d 635, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyrrell-v-hoffman-nyappdiv-2000.