Dotterman v. Royal Kent Condominium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dotterman v. Royal Kent Condominium

197 A.D.2d 663, 604 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9927

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.D.2d 663 (Dotterman v. Royal Kent Condominium) 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

Dotterman v. Royal Kent Condominium, 197 A.D.2d 663, 604 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an [664]*664action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated August 13, 1991, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court (LeVine, J.), entered May 14, 1992, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there are no issues of fact requiring a trial. Nor did the court improvidently exercise its discretion in denying renewal. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an [664]*664action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated August 13, 1991, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court (LeVine, J.), entered May 14, 1992, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there are no issues of fact requiring a trial. Nor did the court improvidently exercise its discretion in denying renewal. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 663, 604 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dotterman-v-royal-kent-condominium-nyappdiv-1993.