From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bello v. Lefrak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1997
236 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

February 24, 1997.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated October 25, 1995, which denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of indemnification against the defendant Central Elevator, Inc.

Before: O'Brien, J.P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the appellants' motion is granted to the extent that they are awarded partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for indemnification for the portion of any judgment which may be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against them on a theory of vicarious liability for the negligence of the defendant Central Elevator, Inc., and the motion is otherwise denied.

The appellants are charged with vicarious liability for the negligence of the codefendant Central Elevator, Inc. Accordingly, it was error not to have granted partial summary judgment to them against Central Elevator, Inc., on the issue of indemnification for the portion of any potential judgment based on that vicarious liability ( see, e.g., Richardson v Matarese, 206 AD2d 354; see also, Mas v Two Bridges Assocs., 75 NY2d 680; cf., American Home Assur. Co. v Mainco Contr. Corp., 204 AD2d 500).


Summaries of

Bello v. Lefrak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1997
236 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Bello v. Lefrak

Case Details

Full title:ALFREDO BELLO, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL J. LEFRAK et al., Appellants, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 24, 1997

Citations

236 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
654 N.Y.S.2d 673

Citing Cases

Ortiz v. Fifth Avenue Building Associates

Thus, the owner is entitled to conditional summary judgment on its cross-claim for contractual…

Mohring v. Kimco Realty Corp.

fendant — 3rd-Party Defendant TEAM clearly flies in the face of the facts, and the language of the agreements…