Badea v. Seneca Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Badea v. Seneca Insurance

203 A.D.2d 98, 612 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3765

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about June 30, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendant and third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In light of the fact that the evidence presented on the motion raises material questions concerning, inter alia, whether the instant fire extinguisher was properly installed and situated in the premises and as to what caused the extinguisher to fall, summary judgment was properly denied. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about June 30, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendant and third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In light of the fact that the evidence presented on the motion raises material questions concerning, inter alia, whether the instant fire extinguisher was properly installed and situated in the premises and as to what caused the extinguisher to fall, summary judgment was properly denied. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Badea v. Seneca Insurance, 203 A.D.2d 98, 612 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

203 A.D.2d 98 (Badea v. Seneca Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related