Ferguson v. Tishman Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferguson v. Tishman Construction Co.

247 A.D.2d 268, 667 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1403

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 268 (Ferguson v. Tishman Construction Co.) 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

Ferguson v. Tishman Construction Co., 247 A.D.2d 268, 667 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Qmansky, J.), entered on or about December 10, 1996, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff employee testified that he worked on the laying of concrete in the employ of the contractor who was identified as having performed concrete contracting on the site in 1991, at a time when defendant was construction manager. Plaintiff employee’s “deposition testimony, taken in light of other submissions on the motion, raises credibility questions precluding summary judgment” (Bonilla v Petrillo Realty Dev. Corp., 237 AD2d 115), and accordingly defendant’s motion was properly denied. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Qmansky, J.), entered on or about December 10, 1996, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff employee testified that he worked on the laying of concrete in the employ of the contractor who was identified as having performed concrete contracting on the site in 1991, at a time when defendant was construction manager. Plaintiff employee’s “deposition testimony, taken in light of other submissions on the motion, raises credibility questions precluding summary judgment” (Bonilla v Petrillo Realty Dev. Corp., 237 AD2d 115), and accordingly defendant’s motion was properly denied. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 268, 667 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-tishman-construction-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack