Gambino v. Heredia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gambino v. Heredia

41 A.D.3d 536, 836 N.Y.S.2d 439

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 536 (Gambino v. Heredia) 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

Gambino v. Heredia, 41 A.D.3d 536, 836 N.Y.S.2d 439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to re- cover damages for assault and battery, and negligence, the defendant Robert Heredia appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered August 7, 2006, which [537]*537denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as to him.

Ordered that the order modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as to the defendant Robert Heredia and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment to both parties to this appeal. Miller, J.P., Mastro, Krausman and Carni, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to re- cover damages for assault and battery, and negligence, the defendant Robert Heredia appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered August 7, 2006, which [537]*537denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as to him.

Ordered that the order modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as to the defendant Robert Heredia and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment to both parties to this appeal. Miller, J.P., Mastro, Krausman and Carni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 536, 836 N.Y.S.2d 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gambino-v-heredia-nyappdiv-2007.