You are here: / / Proof Submitted in Reply Papers Not Considered
, , ,

Proof Submitted in Reply Papers Not Considered

In finding plaintiffs’ claim for indemnification was not supported by proof plaintiffs had actually paid the debts for which they sought reimbursement, the Second Department noted that the debt-payment-proof submitted in reply papers could not be considered:

With limited exceptions not applicable here, a cause of action seeking indemnification is not enforceable until payment is made or a loss is suffered by the party seeking indemnification …. Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that they actually paid any of the debts … . The plaintiffs’ proof on that issue, which was submitted for the first time in their reply papers, may not be considered for purposes of establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .  Gamparo v Mathai, 2013 NY Slip Op 02711, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN HER FAILURE TO RECEIVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WHICH WERE MAILED TWICE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO SUCH MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE HAD A COURT OFFICER COMMUNICATE WITH THE JURY ABOUT A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER OUTSIDE OF THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Petitioner’s Position Properly Abolished by Enactment of Town Budget
A Three-and-a-Half-Foot Fall from a Railing to a Raised Platform Was Covered by Labor Law 240(1)–Elements of Labor Law 240(1), 200 and 246(1) Causes of Action Explained—Failure to State (in the Pleadings) the Particular Industrial Code Provision Alleged to Have Been Violated Was Not Fatal to the Labor Law 246(1) Cause of Action—Belated Identification of the Code Provision Did Not Prejudice Defendant
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE: (1) STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; (2) COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE; AND (3), COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED DID NOT PRECLUDE MOTHER’S GUARDIANSHIP PETITION OR FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defendant Was Not Plaintiff’s “Special Employer” Criteria for Professional Negligence Actions Against Accountant Not in Privity...