Dublin v. Prime

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dublin v. Prime

168 A.D.2d 597, 563 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16020

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 597 (Dublin v. Prime) 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

Dublin v. Prime, 168 A.D.2d 597, 563 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Prime appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated June 19, 1989, as granted the cross motion of the defendant McNeilab, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the appeal must be dismissed because the appellant is not aggrieved by the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint against his codefendant, McNeilab, Inc. (see, CPLR 5511; Hauser v North Rockland Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 166 AD2d 553). Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, 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 medical malpractice, the defendant Prime appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated June 19, 1989, as granted the cross motion of the defendant McNeilab, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the appeal must be dismissed because the appellant is not aggrieved by the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint against his codefendant, McNeilab, Inc. (see, CPLR 5511; Hauser v North Rockland Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 166 AD2d 553). Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 597, 563 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dublin-v-prime-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack