Camaro v. AVR Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camaro v. AVR Realty Co.

259 A.D.2d 723, 685 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 29, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Brisbane Associates and Waldbaums appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated August 25, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that there are issues of fact warranting a trial, such that the appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, e.g., Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, 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 Brisbane Associates and Waldbaums appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated August 25, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that there are issues of fact warranting a trial, such that the appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, e.g., Glick v City of New York, 139 AD2d 402). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Camaro v. AVR Realty Co., 259 A.D.2d 723, 685 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

259 A.D.2d 723 (Camaro v. AVR Realty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related