Flores v. Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flores v. Griffin

215 A.D.2d 434, 627 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4919

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

DecidedMay 8, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 434 (Flores v. Griffin) 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

Flores v. Griffin, 215 A.D.2d 434, 627 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff David Flores appeals and the defendants Thomas F. Griffin and CBL Truck Leasing, Inc., cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated September 30, 1993, which granted the motion of the defendants Charles Hickman and Laminators Supply Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from, for reasons stated by Justice Krausman at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

[435]*435Ordered that the defendants-respondents are awarded one bill of costs, payable by the respondents-appellants. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, 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, the plaintiff David Flores appeals and the defendants Thomas F. Griffin and CBL Truck Leasing, Inc., cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated September 30, 1993, which granted the motion of the defendants Charles Hickman and Laminators Supply Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from, for reasons stated by Justice Krausman at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

[435]*435Ordered that the defendants-respondents are awarded one bill of costs, payable by the respondents-appellants. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 434, 627 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-griffin-nyappdiv-1995.