Chin v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chin v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

284 A.D.2d 491, 726 N.Y.S.2d 582, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6833

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

DecidedJune 25, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 491 (Chin v. Sears Roebuck & Co.) 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

Chin v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 284 A.D.2d 491, 726 N.Y.S.2d 582, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated January 31, 2001, which denied their motion to preclude the defendant from offering evidence at trial pertaining to its twelfth affirmative defense.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion to preclude the defendant from offering evidence at trial pertaining to its twelfth affirmative defense (see, Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663, 664; Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524; Coleman v Richards, 138 AD2d 556). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated January 31, 2001, which denied their motion to preclude the defendant from offering evidence at trial pertaining to its twelfth affirmative defense.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion to preclude the defendant from offering evidence at trial pertaining to its twelfth affirmative defense (see, Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663, 664; Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524; Coleman v Richards, 138 AD2d 556). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 491, 726 N.Y.S.2d 582, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chin-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack