Valient v. Rimland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valient v. Rimland

253 A.D.2d 463, 675 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8850

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

DecidedAugust 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 463 (Valient v. Rimland) 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

Valient v. Rimland, 253 A.D.2d 463, 675 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Scenic View Landscaping Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 9, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim for indemnification asserted against it by the defendants Aaron Rimland and Jeffrey Rimland Company.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly found that there are issues of fact as to whether the appellant properly performed its ice- and snow-removal duties pursuant to the terms of its contract with the respondents (see, e.g., Phillips v Young Men’s Christian Assn., 215 AD2d 825; Ledda v Minkin, 149 AD2d 471; see also, Capraro v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 245 AD2d 256; Leale v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 222 AD2d 414; D’Acunzo v Rouse S.I. Shopping Ctr., 214 AD2d 531). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Scenic View Landscaping Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 9, 1997, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim for indemnification asserted against it by the defendants Aaron Rimland and Jeffrey Rimland Company.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly found that there are issues of fact as to whether the appellant properly performed its ice- and snow-removal duties pursuant to the terms of its contract with the respondents (see, e.g., Phillips v Young Men’s Christian Assn., 215 AD2d 825; Ledda v Minkin, 149 AD2d 471; see also, Capraro v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 245 AD2d 256; Leale v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 222 AD2d 414; D’Acunzo v Rouse S.I. Shopping Ctr., 214 AD2d 531). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 463, 675 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valient-v-rimland-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack