Batac v. Associated Security Specialists

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Batac v. Associated Security Specialists

183 A.D.2d 678, 586 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7350

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

DecidedMay 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 678 (Batac v. Associated Security Specialists) 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

Batac v. Associated Security Specialists, 183 A.D.2d 678, 586 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered April 5, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The rule against successive motions for summary judgment warrants denial of the present motion (Graney Dev. Corp. v Taksen, 62 AD2d 1148, 1149). Additionally, in view of the questions that surround the nature and extent of the "standing orders” issued by defendant to its security personnel, and absent evidence by defendant that the security procedures in place were sufficient and adequately performed, defendant has failed to establish prima facie that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered April 5, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The rule against successive motions for summary judgment warrants denial of the present motion (Graney Dev. Corp. v Taksen, 62 AD2d 1148, 1149). Additionally, in view of the questions that surround the nature and extent of the "standing orders” issued by defendant to its security personnel, and absent evidence by defendant that the security procedures in place were sufficient and adequately performed, defendant has failed to establish prima facie that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 678, 586 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batac-v-associated-security-specialists-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack