Finley v. Weill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finley v. Weill

264 A.D.2d 438, 693 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8701

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

DecidedAugust 16, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 438 (Finley v. Weill) 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

Finley v. Weill, 264 A.D.2d 438, 693 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered October 21, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and third-party complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the appellants owed an independent duty of care to the plaintiffs, as well as to the defendant Theodore C. Weill, and that there was an issue of fact with respect to the appellants’ role in creating the icy condition at issue (see, Genen v Metro-North Commuter R. R., 261 AD2d 211; Currier v Wiltrom Assocs., 250 AD2d 956; Phillips v Seril, 209 AD2d 496; Varga v Parker, 136 AD2d 932; see also, English v City of Albany, 235 AD2d 977). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, 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 third-party defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered October 21, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and third-party complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the appellants owed an independent duty of care to the plaintiffs, as well as to the defendant Theodore C. Weill, and that there was an issue of fact with respect to the appellants’ role in creating the icy condition at issue (see, Genen v Metro-North Commuter R. R., 261 AD2d 211; Currier v Wiltrom Assocs., 250 AD2d 956; Phillips v Seril, 209 AD2d 496; Varga v Parker, 136 AD2d 932; see also, English v City of Albany, 235 AD2d 977). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 438, 693 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finley-v-weill-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack