Gagliano v. Galdi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gagliano v. Galdi

82 A.D.2d 845, 441 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14531

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

DecidedJune 15, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.2d 845 (Gagliano v. Galdi) 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

Gagliano v. Galdi, 82 A.D.2d 845, 441 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for property damages, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated September 11,1980, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. Defendant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. To the extent that plaintiff alleges acts of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of [846]*846defendant, his action is not barred by the release executed by him (see Gross v Sweet, 49 NY2d 102). We note that defendant’s reliance on the Statute of Limitations has apparently been abandoned on appeal. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover for property damages, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated September 11,1980, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. Defendant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. To the extent that plaintiff alleges acts of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of [846]*846defendant, his action is not barred by the release executed by him (see Gross v Sweet, 49 NY2d 102). We note that defendant’s reliance on the Statute of Limitations has apparently been abandoned on appeal. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 845, 441 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gagliano-v-galdi-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack