Abrahamsen v. Brockway Glass Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abrahamsen v. Brockway Glass Co.

119 A.D.2d 612, 500 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55547

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

DecidedApril 14, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 612 (Abrahamsen v. Brockway Glass Co.) 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

Abrahamsen v. Brockway Glass Co., 119 A.D.2d 612, 500 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated July 19, 1985, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to renew or reargue prior motions of the defendant and the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaints against each of them, and, upon reargument, determined that the underlying motions were to be held in abeyance pending the furnishing of a promised but omitted expert’s report to Special Term and opposing parties within a 30-day period.

Appeal dismissed, on the law, without costs or disbursement.

The order holding the underlying motions in abeyance, pending service and receipt of a report, did not determine those motions and therefore is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; cf. Astuto v New York Univ. Med. Center, 97 AD2d 805). Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated July 19, 1985, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to renew or reargue prior motions of the defendant and the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaints against each of them, and, upon reargument, determined that the underlying motions were to be held in abeyance pending the furnishing of a promised but omitted expert’s report to Special Term and opposing parties within a 30-day period.

Appeal dismissed, on the law, without costs or disbursement.

The order holding the underlying motions in abeyance, pending service and receipt of a report, did not determine those motions and therefore is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; cf. Astuto v New York Univ. Med. Center, 97 AD2d 805). Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 612, 500 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrahamsen-v-brockway-glass-co-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack