Zalewski v. Five Boro Roofing Contractors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zalewski v. Five Boro Roofing Contractors, Inc.

285 A.D.2d 500, 727 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087

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

DecidedJuly 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 500 (Zalewski v. Five Boro Roofing Contractors, 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

Zalewski v. Five Boro Roofing Contractors, Inc., 285 A.D.2d 500, 727 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant first and second third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its stipulation with the second third-party defendant State Insurance Fund, dated April 11, 2001, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated January 19, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its cause of action to compel the second third-party defendant Travelers Property and Casualty Insurance Co. to defend and indemnify it in the main action and granted the cross motion of the second third-party defendant [501]*501Travelers Property and Casualty Insurance Co. for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Travelers Property and Casualty Insurance Co. for summary judgment as it made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). In opposition, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Townes, 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 first and second third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its stipulation with the second third-party defendant State Insurance Fund, dated April 11, 2001, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated January 19, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its cause of action to compel the second third-party defendant Travelers Property and Casualty Insurance Co. to defend and indemnify it in the main action and granted the cross motion of the second third-party defendant [501]*501Travelers Property and Casualty Insurance Co. for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Travelers Property and Casualty Insurance Co. for summary judgment as it made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). In opposition, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 500, 727 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zalewski-v-five-boro-roofing-contractors-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack