Curtis v. Naselli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curtis v. Naselli

12 A.D.3d 1098, 784 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13835

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 1098 (Curtis v. Naselli) 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

Curtis v. Naselli, 12 A.D.3d 1098, 784 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Charles T. Major, J.), entered July 23, 2003. The order denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint in a personal injury action.

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

Memorandum: In this negligence action arising from injuries sustained by plaintiffs daughter in a fire at a dwelling owned [1099]*1099by defendants, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the amended complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), we nevertheless conclude that plaintiff raised issues of fact in opposition to the motion (see id.). Present— Pigott, Jr., PJ., Pine, Scudder, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Charles T. Major, J.), entered July 23, 2003. The order denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint in a personal injury action.

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

Memorandum: In this negligence action arising from injuries sustained by plaintiffs daughter in a fire at a dwelling owned [1099]*1099by defendants, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the amended complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), we nevertheless conclude that plaintiff raised issues of fact in opposition to the motion (see id.). Present— Pigott, Jr., PJ., Pine, Scudder, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 1098, 784 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-naselli-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack