Fuller v. Marcello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuller v. Marcello

17 A.D.3d 1019, 793 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4732

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

DecidedApril 29, 2005

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 1019 (Fuller v. Marcello) 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

Fuller v. Marcello, 17 A.D.3d 1019, 793 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered February 4, 2004. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of defendant Pino Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Billy Bob’s, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion of defendant Pino Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Billy Bob’s, is denied in part and the complaint against that defendant is reinstated.

Same memorandum as in Fuller v Marcello (17 AD3d 1017 [2005]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered February 4, 2004. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of defendant Pino Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Billy Bob’s, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion of defendant Pino Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Billy Bob’s, is denied in part and the complaint against that defendant is reinstated.

Same memorandum as in Fuller v Marcello (17 AD3d 1017 [2005]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 1019, 793 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-marcello-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack