Search for: "Van Vlack v. Van Vlack"
Results 1 - 3
of 3
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2015, 3:24 pm
We find that the "non-delegable duty" exception set forth in CPLR 1602(2)(iv) does not apply to the facts of this case, and we therefore conclude that the Supreme Court erred in refusing to issue an apportionment charge (see also, Van Vlack v. [read post]
23 May 2015, 2:09 pm
We find that the "non-delegable duty" exception set forth in CPLR 1602(2)(iv) does not apply to the facts of this case, and we therefore conclude that the Supreme Court erred in refusing to issue an apportionment charge (see also, Van Vlack v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 3:24 pm
We find that the "non-delegable duty" exception set forth in CPLR 1602(2)(iv) does not apply to the facts of this case, and we therefore conclude that the Supreme Court erred in refusing to issue an apportionment charge (see also, Van Vlack v. [read post]
