Harmon v. Ziehm, 162 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Harmon v. Ziehm, 162 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Williams v. County of Genesee (nyappdiv, 2003-06-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. County of Genesee (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Plan of Greater N.Y., 7 NY2d 56, 60-61 [1959]), and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether the statements were motivated by the requisite actual malice, i.e., ill will, personal spite, culpable recklessness or negligence, to defeat the privilege (see Stillman v Ford, 22 NY2d 48, 53 [1968]; Clark v Somers, 162 AD2d 982, 983 [1990]; Murphy v Herfort, 140 AD2d 415, 416-417 [1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 701 [1988], rearg denied 73 NY2d 872 [1989]; see also Foster, 87 NY2d at 751-752 ; Anas v Brown, 269 AD2d 761 [2000]).
discussed Cited "see" Weir v. Equifax Services, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether Equifax conveyed the information in its confidential report with spite or ill will, or with serious doubts as to its truth or "with [a] high degree of awareness of their probable falsity” (Garrison v Louisiana, supra, at 74; see, Clark v Somers, 162 AD2d 982, 983 ; Murphy v Herfort, 140 AD2d 415, 416-417 , lv denied 73 NY2d 701 , rearg denied 73 NY2d 872).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William G. Harmon
v.
Al Ziehm, Individually and Doing Business as Al's Pitcher's Mound, and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, William G. Harmon, Inc., Third-Party
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 22, 1990.
162 A.D.2d 982
Published

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: The court erred in denying third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing third-party plaintiff Ziehm’s complaint against it. Third-party defendant met its initial burden of showing that it owed no duty to Ziehm or to plaintiff; without a duty, there can be no liability for contribution or indemnification (see, Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp., 71 NY2d 599, 603; Smith v Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp., 83 AD2d 199, 201-202, Iv dismissed 56 NY2d 503). Nor can third-party defendant be held liable under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. It had no authority to control the activity bringing about the injury, and thus could not avoid or correct an unsafe condition (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317-318; Kopacz v Airco Carbon, 104 AD2d 722). Third-party plaintiff’s submission of an attorney’s affidavit stating that unspecified EBT testimony revealed triable issues of fact regarding the nature of the relationship among third-party defendant, defendant Janowsky, and plaintiff was conclusory and insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see generally, GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967-968). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.