Walsh v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walsh v. City of New York

227 A.D.2d 470, 643 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5111

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

DecidedMay 13, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 470 (Walsh 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

Walsh v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 470, 643 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 24, 1994, as denied those branches of its motion which were to dismiss the first and second causes of action in the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the third-party defendant’s motion which were to dismiss the first and second causes of action in the third-party complaint are granted, and the third-party complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

The Supreme Court should have dismissed the first and second causes of action in the third-party complaint because those causes of action are barred by the antisubrogation rule (see, Tempesta v City of New York, 214 AD2d 723). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Altman, 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 third-party defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 24, 1994, as denied those branches of its motion which were to dismiss the first and second causes of action in the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the third-party defendant’s motion which were to dismiss the first and second causes of action in the third-party complaint are granted, and the third-party complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

The Supreme Court should have dismissed the first and second causes of action in the third-party complaint because those causes of action are barred by the antisubrogation rule (see, Tempesta v City of New York, 214 AD2d 723). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 470, 643 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack