Florio v. Parr Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Florio v. Parr Development Corp.

203 A.D.2d 513, 612 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4298

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

DecidedApril 25, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 513 (Florio v. Parr Development Corp.) 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

Florio v. Parr Development Corp., 203 A.D.2d 513, 612 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Modular Devices, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 4, 1992, as (1) denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the cross-claims asserted against it by the third-party defendant V.L.S. Mason Contractors, (2) granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for relief from their stipulation of discontinuance of the action as against it, and (3) restored all parties to their original positions prior to the execution of stipulations of discontinuance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, for reasons stated by Justice Cohalan at the Supreme Court. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, 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, etc., the defendant Modular Devices, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 4, 1992, as (1) denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the cross-claims asserted against it by the third-party defendant V.L.S. Mason Contractors, (2) granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for relief from their stipulation of discontinuance of the action as against it, and (3) restored all parties to their original positions prior to the execution of stipulations of discontinuance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, for reasons stated by Justice Cohalan at the Supreme Court. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 513, 612 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florio-v-parr-development-corp-nyappdiv-1994.