Brown v. Harper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Harper

243 A.D.2d 669, 664 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10754

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 669 (Brown v. Harper) 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

Brown v. Harper, 243 A.D.2d 669, 664 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated January 7, 1997, as denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

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

The plaintiffs motion, submitted prior to service of the defendant Artiz Harper’s answer and the commencement of pretrial discovery, was made before material facts and circumstances of the underlying accident had been fully developed (see, Silver Dollar Shows v Town of Huntington, 152 AD2d 558). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied as premature. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated January 7, 1997, as denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

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

The plaintiffs motion, submitted prior to service of the defendant Artiz Harper’s answer and the commencement of pretrial discovery, was made before material facts and circumstances of the underlying accident had been fully developed (see, Silver Dollar Shows v Town of Huntington, 152 AD2d 558). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied as premature. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 669, 664 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-harper-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack