Hansen v. Filtron Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hansen v. Filtron Manufacturing Co.

227 A.D.2d 522, 643 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5324

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

DecidedMay 20, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 522 (Hansen v. Filtron Manufacturing Co.) 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

Hansen v. Filtron Manufacturing Co., 227 A.D.2d 522, 643 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Unisys Corporation and Unisys Defense Systems, Inc., n/k/a Paramax Systems Corporation, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), entered February 23, 1995, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the appellants’ motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellants Unisys Corporation and Unisys Defense Systems, Inc., n/k/a Paramax Systems Corporation, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The Supreme Court improperly denied the appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, Briggs v Pymm Thermometer Corp., 147 AD2d 433; Scimeca v Town of Babylon, 108 AD2d 848; see also, Widera v Ettco Wire & Cable Corp., 204 AD2d 306). Balletta, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Krausman, 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, etc., the defendants Unisys Corporation and Unisys Defense Systems, Inc., n/k/a Paramax Systems Corporation, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), entered February 23, 1995, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the appellants’ motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellants Unisys Corporation and Unisys Defense Systems, Inc., n/k/a Paramax Systems Corporation, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The Supreme Court improperly denied the appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, Briggs v Pymm Thermometer Corp., 147 AD2d 433; Scimeca v Town of Babylon, 108 AD2d 848; see also, Widera v Ettco Wire & Cable Corp., 204 AD2d 306). Balletta, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 522, 643 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-v-filtron-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack