Glover v. Ejeana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glover v. Ejeana

272 A.D.2d 294, 707 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852

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

DecidedMay 1, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 294 (Glover v. Ejeana) 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

Glover v. Ejeana, 272 A.D.2d 294, 707 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated March 15, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., and Andrew Horner, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the respondents were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, Zaslavskay v Twine, 249 AD2d 466; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated March 15, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., and Andrew Horner, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the respondents were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, Zaslavskay v Twine, 249 AD2d 466; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 294, 707 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-ejeana-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack