Goldstein v. Tanz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Tanz

12 A.D.2d 492, 207 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 492 (Goldstein v. Tanz) 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

Goldstein v. Tanz, 12 A.D.2d 492, 207 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 2, 1960, which grants plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of their motion for summary judgment striking out defendants’ answer, previously denied, and which upon reargument grants plaintiffs’ said motion for summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order modified: (1) by striking out the second, third, fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs which grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, strike out defendants’ answer, and direct an assessment of the damages and the entry of judgment based thereon; and (2) by substituting therefor a provision denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendants. The papers present a triable issue of fact as to negligence. There is no need now to pass on defendants’ other contentions. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, 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, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 2, 1960, which grants plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of their motion for summary judgment striking out defendants’ answer, previously denied, and which upon reargument grants plaintiffs’ said motion for summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order modified: (1) by striking out the second, third, fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs which grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, strike out defendants’ answer, and direct an assessment of the damages and the entry of judgment based thereon; and (2) by substituting therefor a provision denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendants. The papers present a triable issue of fact as to negligence. There is no need now to pass on defendants’ other contentions. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 492, 207 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-tanz-nyappdiv-1960.