Bardis v. Ubiles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bardis v. Ubiles

38 A.D.3d 812, 831 N.Y.S.2d 340

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 812 (Bardis v. Ubiles) 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

Bardis v. Ubiles, 38 A.D.3d 812, 831 N.Y.S.2d 340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Ricardo Ubiles and Visan Fuel Oil Company, Inc., doing business as Reliable Fuel, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated January 3, 2006, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

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

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [813]*813[1980]; Gregson v Terry, 35 AD3d 358, 361 [2006]). Ritter, J.E, Goldstein, Lifson and Angiolillo, 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 defendants Ricardo Ubiles and Visan Fuel Oil Company, Inc., doing business as Reliable Fuel, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated January 3, 2006, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

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

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [813]*813[1980]; Gregson v Terry, 35 AD3d 358, 361 [2006]). Ritter, J.E, Goldstein, Lifson and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 812, 831 N.Y.S.2d 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bardis-v-ubiles-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack