Zago v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zago v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

56 A.D.2d 649, 391 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10780

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 649 (Zago v. Ryder Truck Rental, 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

Zago v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 649, 391 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, third-party defendant Harvard Zago (in reality the attorney who represents Mm) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 2, 1976, which denied an application by Ms attorney for leave to withdraw from the defense of the tMrd-party action, and did so without prejudice to a renewal of the application in the event that the Home Indemnity Company “establishes a proper and valid disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage.” Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The discretion of Special Term was properly exercised. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, third-party defendant Harvard Zago (in reality the attorney who represents Mm) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 2, 1976, which denied an application by Ms attorney for leave to withdraw from the defense of the tMrd-party action, and did so without prejudice to a renewal of the application in the event that the Home Indemnity Company “establishes a proper and valid disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage.” Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The discretion of Special Term was properly exercised. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 649, 391 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zago-v-ryder-truck-rental-inc-nyappdiv-1977.