Legal Opinion
Wendel v. Hari Services International, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 17, 1996PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. There is *583no indication that the defendant was an "owner” (see, Wendel v Pillsbury Corp., 205 AD2d 527), "contractor” (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311; Townsend v Nenni Equip. Corp., 208 AD2d 825; cf., Kenny v Fuller Co., 87 AD2d 183), or "agent” (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, supra; D’Amico v New York Racing Assn., 203 AD2d 509; Paone v Westwood Vil., 178 AD2d 518; cf., McGlynn v Brooklyn Hosp. Caledonian Hosp., 209 AD2d 486), so as to render it liable pursuant to any provision of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & SonNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Lombardi v. StoutNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Kenny v. George A. Fuller Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- D'Amico v. New York Racing Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Wendel v. Pillsbury Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- People v. TownsleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997