Vasiliades v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vasiliades v. City of New York

7 A.D.3d 697, 776 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7005

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

DecidedMay 17, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 697 (Vasiliades v. City of New York) 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

Vasiliades v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 697, 776 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated October 22, 2002, which denied its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint on the grounds of laches and spoliation of evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An action for indemnification such as the third-party action in this case, is an action at law (see McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211, 217 n 2 [1980]). The doctrine of laches has no application to such an action at law (see Roth v Black Star Publ. Co., 302 AD2d 442, 443 [2003]).

Further, the appellant’s contention that a ladder the plaintiff borrowed from the third-party plaintiffs constituted a key piece of evidence which was lost (cf. Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth., 236 AD2d 170, 173 [1997]) is based on pure speculation. In any event, the appellant failed to establish any intentional or negligent conduct on the part of the third-party plaintiffs (see Kulhan v Minxray, Inc., 255 AD2d 364 [1998]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Crane, 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 third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated October 22, 2002, which denied its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint on the grounds of laches and spoliation of evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An action for indemnification such as the third-party action in this case, is an action at law (see McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211, 217 n 2 [1980]). The doctrine of laches has no application to such an action at law (see Roth v Black Star Publ. Co., 302 AD2d 442, 443 [2003]).

Further, the appellant’s contention that a ladder the plaintiff borrowed from the third-party plaintiffs constituted a key piece of evidence which was lost (cf. Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth., 236 AD2d 170, 173 [1997]) is based on pure speculation. In any event, the appellant failed to establish any intentional or negligent conduct on the part of the third-party plaintiffs (see Kulhan v Minxray, Inc., 255 AD2d 364 [1998]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 697, 776 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasiliades-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack