123 Cutting Co. v. Topcove Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

123 Cutting Co. v. Topcove Associates, Inc.

271 A.D.2d 665, 707 N.Y.S.2d 350

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 665 (123 Cutting Co. v. Topcove Associates, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

123 Cutting Co. v. Topcove Associates, Inc., 271 A.D.2d 665, 707 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In related negligence actions to recover damages for injury to property, which were joined for trial, Ward Mechanical Corporation, a defendant in both actions, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated February 18, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, in both actions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Ward Mechanical Corp. failed to make a show[666]*666ing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The papers submitted in support of its motion raised material issues of fact, including whether, the day before the fire, its employees worked in the area where the fire originated (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In related negligence actions to recover damages for injury to property, which were joined for trial, Ward Mechanical Corporation, a defendant in both actions, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated February 18, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, in both actions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Ward Mechanical Corp. failed to make a show[666]*666ing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The papers submitted in support of its motion raised material issues of fact, including whether, the day before the fire, its employees worked in the area where the fire originated (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 665, 707 N.Y.S.2d 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/123-cutting-co-v-topcove-associates-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack