Narrative Opinion Summary
In an indemnification action, the plaintiff's appeal from a Supreme Court order (Queens County, Dye, J.) dated August 26, 1996, which denied the motion for summary judgment, is affirmed with costs. The court determined that there exists a triable issue of fact, justifying the denial of summary judgment, referencing relevant case law (Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623; Castignoli v Van Guard, 242 AD2d 357). Additionally, the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint, introduced for the first time in the reply papers, was deemed improper and not considered (citing Galatti v Alliance Funding Co., 228 AD2d 550; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536). Judges Pizzuto, Joy, Friedmann, and Florio concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Summary Judgment due to Triable Issue of Factsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment by identifying the existence of a triable issue of fact, thereby affirming the necessity of proceeding to trial.
Reasoning: The court determined that there exists a triable issue of fact, justifying the denial of summary judgment, referencing relevant case law (Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623; Castignoli v Van Guard, 242 AD2d 357).
Impropriety of Amending Complaint in Reply Paperssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the plaintiff's attempt to amend the complaint in the reply papers to be improper as it was introduced for the first time at that stage and therefore was not considered.
Reasoning: Additionally, the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint, introduced for the first time in the reply papers, was deemed improper and not considered (citing Galatti v Alliance Funding Co., 228 AD2d 550; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536).