Costa v. Schnabel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Costa v. Schnabel

209 A.D.2d 372, 619 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11018

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 372 (Costa v. Schnabel) 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

Costa v. Schnabel, 209 A.D.2d 372, 619 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant L.K. Comstock & Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated December 23, 1992, as denied that [373]*373branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

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

The plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the appellant was negligent in its prior repair of a traffic control device and as to whether the defect in the device was the proximate cause of the accident which gave rise to the plaintiffs’ claims (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, 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 defendant L.K. Comstock & Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated December 23, 1992, as denied that [373]*373branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

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

The plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the appellant was negligent in its prior repair of a traffic control device and as to whether the defect in the device was the proximate cause of the accident which gave rise to the plaintiffs’ claims (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 372, 619 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costa-v-schnabel-nyappdiv-1994.