Green v. Dunne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Green v. Dunne

232 A.D.2d 610, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11375

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 610 (Green v. Dunne) 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

Green v. Dunne, 232 A.D.2d 610, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Peggy Matthews appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated September 6,1995, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The appellant’s contention that she is not liable by virtue of her status as an out-of-possession landlord was not raised before the Supreme Court and, therefore, is not properly before this Court (see, Kohilakis v Town of Smithtown, 167 AD2d 513).

The appellant’s remaining contention also is not properly before this Court. Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Peggy Matthews appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated September 6,1995, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The appellant’s contention that she is not liable by virtue of her status as an out-of-possession landlord was not raised before the Supreme Court and, therefore, is not properly before this Court (see, Kohilakis v Town of Smithtown, 167 AD2d 513).

The appellant’s remaining contention also is not properly before this Court. Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 610, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-dunne-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack