Legal Opinion
Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio Associates
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 24, 2001PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*666OPINION OF THE COURT
Paul A. Victor, J.
Defendants and third-party plaintiffs Lancaster Studio Associates, Dennis Wright, Benjamin Hadar, and Ruth Shomron (hereinafter, collectively, Lancaster) move for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint as well as the counterclaims interposed by third-party defendants Paragon Cable Manhattan, Inc. and Time Warner Cable of New York City, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively, third-party defendant or Paragon), or in the alternative for judgment against the third-party defendants for indemnification. The third-party defendants move by separate…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Gordon v. Eastern Railway Supply, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Cannon v. PutnamNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- Quigley v. . ThatcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio AssociatesNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003