From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rudman v. Canal Studio Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 1997
243 A.D.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 2, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).


The two decretal paragraphs in issue merely reflect the court's reasoning in denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with her cotenant, the third-party defendant herein, for the arson he committed and is an equally objectionable tenant because of such arson. Since plaintiff did not move for summary judgment declaring the opposite, the court, in this instance, should not have included such directive in its order, particularly since questions of fact remain regarding the liability issues.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Colabella, JJ.


Summaries of

Rudman v. Canal Studio Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 1997
243 A.D.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Rudman v. Canal Studio Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MATILDA RUDMAN, Individually and as Surviving Heir of HARRY RUDMAN…

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 513