Finkelstein v. Dietrich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finkelstein v. Dietrich

52 A.D.3d 463, 857 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedJune 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.3d 463 (Finkelstein v. Dietrich) 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

Finkelstein v. Dietrich, 52 A.D.3d 463, 857 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated May 4, 2007, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In response to the defendants’ demonstration of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant Philip Dietrich was the man who squirted the infant plaintiff with water, allegedly causing him to fall and injure himself. Fisher, J.P, Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur. [See 15 Misc 3d 1137(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51016(U).]

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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated May 4, 2007, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In response to the defendants’ demonstration of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant Philip Dietrich was the man who squirted the infant plaintiff with water, allegedly causing him to fall and injure himself. Fisher, J.P, Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur. [See 15 Misc 3d 1137(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51016(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 463, 857 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finkelstein-v-dietrich-nyappdiv-2008.