Yonkolowitz v. Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yonkolowitz v. Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

40 A.D.3d 989, 834 N.Y.S.2d 664

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

DecidedMay 22, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 989 (Yonkolowitz v. Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, 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

Yonkolowitz v. Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 40 A.D.3d 989, 834 N.Y.S.2d 664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Eon Labs, Inc., sued herein as Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated February 21, 2006, as denied that branch of its motion which was for conditional summary judgment on its cross claim for common-law indemnification against the defendant Viccaro Equipment Corporation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[990]*990The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant Eon Labs, Inc., sued herein as Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (hereinafter Eon), was not entitled to conditional summary judgment on its cross claim for common-law indemnification against the defendant Viccaro Equipment Corporation (hereinafter Viccaro). Eon failed to establish, as a matter of law, that Viccaro was either negligent or exclusively controlled the work site where the plaintiff was injured (see Benedetto v Carrera Realty Corp., 32 AD3d 874 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, 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 Eon Labs, Inc., sued herein as Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated February 21, 2006, as denied that branch of its motion which was for conditional summary judgment on its cross claim for common-law indemnification against the defendant Viccaro Equipment Corporation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[990]*990The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant Eon Labs, Inc., sued herein as Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (hereinafter Eon), was not entitled to conditional summary judgment on its cross claim for common-law indemnification against the defendant Viccaro Equipment Corporation (hereinafter Viccaro). Eon failed to establish, as a matter of law, that Viccaro was either negligent or exclusively controlled the work site where the plaintiff was injured (see Benedetto v Carrera Realty Corp., 32 AD3d 874 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 989, 834 N.Y.S.2d 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yonkolowitz-v-phoenix-pharmaceuticals-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack