Gerosa Paladino Holding Corp. v. Lind

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gerosa Paladino Holding Corp. v. Lind

20 A.D.2d 714, 247 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4445

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 714 (Gerosa Paladino Holding Corp. v. Lind) 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

Gerosa Paladino Holding Corp. v. Lind, 20 A.D.2d 714, 247 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injury to property caused by the defendant’s alleged negligent operation of his automobile, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 26, 1963, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment striking out defendant’s answer and directing a trial on the issue of damages. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, the record presents issues of fact as to defendant’s negligence; such issues should be resolved after a plenary trial. Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur; Beldoek, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the order on the authority of Stanley v. Burnside (10 A D 2d 652).

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

In an action to recover damages for injury to property caused by the defendant’s alleged negligent operation of his automobile, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 26, 1963, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment striking out defendant’s answer and directing a trial on the issue of damages. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, the record presents issues of fact as to defendant’s negligence; such issues should be resolved after a plenary trial. Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur; Beldoek, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the order on the authority of Stanley v. Burnside (10 A D 2d 652).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 714, 247 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerosa-paladino-holding-corp-v-lind-nyappdiv-1964.