Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Tuesca v. Rando Machine Corp. 89 N.Y.2d 966

← Cases

Tuesca v. Rando Machine Corp.

89 N.Y.2d 966 Court N.Y. Decision date 1997-02-13 English

Contents

Majority

p. 966
[678 NE2d 497, 655 NYS2d 884]
Cesar Tuesca, Respondent, v Rando Machine Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendant. American White Cross Laboratories, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Decided February 13, 1997
p. 967
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Fiedelman & Hoefling, Jericho (William D. Buckley of counsel), for Rando Machine Corp., defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant.
Quirk & Bakalor, P. C., New York City (Richard H. Bakalor of counsel), for American White Cross Laboratories, third-party defendant-appellant.
Rosenberg, Mine & Armstrong, New York City (Steven C. Falkoff of counsel), for respondent.
p. 968
OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division ( 226 AD2d 157 ).

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley.

Cases cited