Volis v. 801 Seventh Avenue, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Volis v. 801 Seventh Avenue, Inc.

288 A.D.2d 307, 732 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11041

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 307 (Volis v. 801 Seventh Avenue, 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

Volis v. 801 Seventh Avenue, Inc., 288 A.D.2d 307, 732 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs, 801 Seventh Avenue, Inc., Sheraton Center Hotel, and Structure Tone, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated December 13, 2000, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant, Hudson-Shatz Painting Co., for summary judgment dismissing their claims for contractual and common-law indemnification.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the claims for contractual and common-law indemnification asserted by the defendants third-party plaintiffs. After the third-party defendant, Hudson-Shatz Painting Co., established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants third-party plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding any negligence on its part (see, Martinez v Tishman Constr. Corp., 227 AD2d 298). Ritter, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein 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, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs, 801 Seventh Avenue, Inc., Sheraton Center Hotel, and Structure Tone, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated December 13, 2000, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant, Hudson-Shatz Painting Co., for summary judgment dismissing their claims for contractual and common-law indemnification.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the claims for contractual and common-law indemnification asserted by the defendants third-party plaintiffs. After the third-party defendant, Hudson-Shatz Painting Co., established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants third-party plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding any negligence on its part (see, Martinez v Tishman Constr. Corp., 227 AD2d 298). Ritter, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 307, 732 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volis-v-801-seventh-avenue-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack