# World Trade Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Lido Knitting Mills, Inc.

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · February 20, 1990 · 154 A.D.2d 99

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5917204

## Case

- **Full name:** World Trade Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Lido Knitting Mills, Inc., and Honeywell, Inc.
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** February 20, 1990
- **Citations:** 154 A.D.2d 99; 551 N.Y.S.2d 930; 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2029
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Lawrence
- **Judges:** Balletta, Bracken, Lawrence
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5917204

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that exculpatory clause in fire alarm contract was enforceable “in the absence of any evidence of gross negligence on the part of the [alarm company]”

## Opinion text

Lawrence, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
For reasons stated therein, I agree with so much of the opinion of my colleague, Justice Balletta as holds that the Supreme Court erred in not granting that branch of the motion of the defendant Honeywell, Inc. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. However, as noted in the opinion of my colleague Justice Bracken, I find that there are triable issues of fact which preclude the granting at this juncture of that branch of the motion of the defendant Honeywell, Inc. which was for summary judgment dismissing the codefendants’ cross claim.
Accordingly, the order should be modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Honeywell, Inc. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order should be affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the cross claim against Honeywell, Inc. should be deemed a third-party complaint.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5917204. Public record. Not legal advice.