Bramble v. Sears

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bramble v. Sears

201 A.D.2d 446, 609 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 986

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 446 (Bramble v. Sears) 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

Bramble v. Sears, 201 A.D.2d 446, 609 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 28, 1991, which denied its resubmitted motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The resubmitted affidavits of the plaintiffs’ experts satisfy this Court’s directive to set forth the experts’ qualifications and the evidentiary facts upon which they base their opinion (see, Bramble v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 172 AD2d 793).

Moreover, the resubmitted affidavits raise triable issues of [447]*447fact about the cause of the subject fire, thereby precluding summary judgment. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman and Hart, 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 and property damage, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 28, 1991, which denied its resubmitted motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The resubmitted affidavits of the plaintiffs’ experts satisfy this Court’s directive to set forth the experts’ qualifications and the evidentiary facts upon which they base their opinion (see, Bramble v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 172 AD2d 793).

Moreover, the resubmitted affidavits raise triable issues of [447]*447fact about the cause of the subject fire, thereby precluding summary judgment. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 446, 609 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bramble-v-sears-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack