Anderson v. Dowling College

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Dowling College

264 A.D.2d 791, 695 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9440

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 791 (Anderson v. Dowling College) 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

Anderson v. Dowling College, 264 A.D.2d 791, 695 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated July 22, 1998, as granted the cross motion of the third-party defendant Aramark Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

The respondent, Aramark Corporation (hereinafter Aramark), made out a prima facie case that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it. Since the defendant third-party plaintiff failed to show the existence of a factual question on this issue, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to Aramark (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Florio, 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, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated July 22, 1998, as granted the cross motion of the third-party defendant Aramark Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

The respondent, Aramark Corporation (hereinafter Aramark), made out a prima facie case that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it. Since the defendant third-party plaintiff failed to show the existence of a factual question on this issue, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to Aramark (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 791, 695 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-dowling-college-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack