DiGiulio v. Kirch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiGiulio v. Kirch

5 A.D.3d 625, 774 N.Y.S.2d 776

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 625 (DiGiulio v. Kirch) 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

DiGiulio v. Kirch, 5 A.D.3d 625, 774 N.Y.S.2d 776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Richard S. Kirch appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J), dated May 16, 2003, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, where discovery aimed [626]*626at uncovering essential facts was still outstanding, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment (see Rosa v Colonial Tr., 276 AD2d 781 [2000]; see also Destin v New York City Tr. Auth., 303 AD2d 713 [2003]; Barletta v Lewis, 237 AD2d 238 [1997]). Altman, J.E, H. Miller, Cozier and Mastro, 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 Richard S. Kirch appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J), dated May 16, 2003, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, where discovery aimed [626]*626at uncovering essential facts was still outstanding, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment (see Rosa v Colonial Tr., 276 AD2d 781 [2000]; see also Destin v New York City Tr. Auth., 303 AD2d 713 [2003]; Barletta v Lewis, 237 AD2d 238 [1997]). Altman, J.E, H. Miller, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 625, 774 N.Y.S.2d 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/digiulio-v-kirch-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack