Carlos v. Tougher Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carlos v. Tougher Industries

243 A.D.2d 435, 665 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9632

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 435 (Carlos v. Tougher Industries) 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

Carlos v. Tougher Industries, 243 A.D.2d 435, 665 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), entered August 16, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since questions of fact exist regarding whether the third-party defendant breached its duty to the injured plaintiff Albert Carlos to provide adequate training and supervision to perform the work which caused Mr. Carlos’ injuries, summary judgment was properly denied (cf., Cummings v Ards Realty Corp., 154 AD2d 321; Dupper v Conrail, 120 AD2d 638). 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, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), entered August 16, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since questions of fact exist regarding whether the third-party defendant breached its duty to the injured plaintiff Albert Carlos to provide adequate training and supervision to perform the work which caused Mr. Carlos’ injuries, summary judgment was properly denied (cf., Cummings v Ards Realty Corp., 154 AD2d 321; Dupper v Conrail, 120 AD2d 638). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 435, 665 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-v-tougher-industries-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack