Eason v. Howard T. Herber Middle School

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eason v. Howard T. Herber Middle School

250 A.D.2d 807, 671 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6026

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 807 (Eason v. Howard T. Herber Middle School) 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

Eason v. Howard T. Herber Middle School, 250 A.D.2d 807, 671 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated June 3, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see generally, Hollinger v Chestnut Ridge Racquet Corp., 227 AD2d 380). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was timely (see, CPLR 3212 [a]; Phoenix Garden Rest. v Chu, 245 AD2d 164; Auger v State of New York, 236 AD2d 177). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated June 3, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see generally, Hollinger v Chestnut Ridge Racquet Corp., 227 AD2d 380). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was timely (see, CPLR 3212 [a]; Phoenix Garden Rest. v Chu, 245 AD2d 164; Auger v State of New York, 236 AD2d 177). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 807, 671 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eason-v-howard-t-herber-middle-school-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack