AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

C. JEFFREY DUFUR, Respondent, v. MATTHEW LAVIN et al., Defendants, and BOWLING GREEN LANES, INC., Appellant.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with so much of the opinion of Presiding Justice A. Franklin Mahoney as found plaintiff Dufur was entitled to judgment against defendants Bowling Green Lanes, Inc., Lutz and Wilson ( 101 A.D.2d 319). The issue of apportionment between defendant Lavin and the remaining defendants is not before us on this appeal ( see, 63 N.Y.2d 894), but inasmuch as plaintiff Dufur's right to recover has been affirmed, he may enter a separate judgment thereon, moving before Trial Term to sever the cross claims if he is so advised, and seek satisfaction of it from one or all of defendant joint tort-feasors (CPLR 1404; Kelly v Long Is. Light. Co, 31 N.Y.2d 25, 30; see generally, 1 N Y PJI2d, at 612 et seq.).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and TITONE concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DUFUR v. LAVIN, BOWLING GREEN LANES, INC
(Jul 2, 1985)