Capruso v. Castoire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capruso v. Castoire

24 A.D.3d 1217, 805 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 1217 (Capruso v. Castoire) 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

Capruso v. Castoire, 24 A.D.3d 1217, 805 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered September 3, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, to the extent that the order may be deemed to conflict with the court’s decision herein, the decision controls (see Matter of King v King, 309 AD2d 1207, 1208 [2003]; Matter of Edward V., 204 AD2d 1060, 1061 [1994]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Martoche, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered September 3, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, to the extent that the order may be deemed to conflict with the court’s decision herein, the decision controls (see Matter of King v King, 309 AD2d 1207, 1208 [2003]; Matter of Edward V., 204 AD2d 1060, 1061 [1994]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Martoche, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 1217, 805 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capruso-v-castoire-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack