Finegold v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finegold v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

202 A.D.2d 469, 610 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2403

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 469 (Finegold v. Brooklyn Union Gas 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

Finegold v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 202 A.D.2d 469, 610 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Hallen Construction Company and New York Paving, Inc. separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated March 16, 1992, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the [470]*470amended verified complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that an award of summary judgment in favor of any of the appellants would be inappropriate on this record. Indeed, there are some conflicts between the documentary evidence and the deposition testimony submitted by the appellants, and the appellants have failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that they were not responsible for the performance of construction work in the area of the roadway where the plaintiff’s accident occurred (see generally, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Accordingly, the motions for summary judgment were properly denied. Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Hallen Construction Company and New York Paving, Inc. separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated March 16, 1992, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the [470]*470amended verified complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that an award of summary judgment in favor of any of the appellants would be inappropriate on this record. Indeed, there are some conflicts between the documentary evidence and the deposition testimony submitted by the appellants, and the appellants have failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that they were not responsible for the performance of construction work in the area of the roadway where the plaintiff’s accident occurred (see generally, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Accordingly, the motions for summary judgment were properly denied. Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 469, 610 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finegold-v-brooklyn-union-gas-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack