Renewal should have been granted to review the previously omitted proof of the indemnification arrangements between the defendants, the absence of which was critical to our prior finding that Westchester County is nothing more than a "nominal defendant" which did not "bear any monetary loss for plaintiffs' injuries" (supra, at 441, 442; see also, Esa v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.