Harty v. Kornish Distributors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harty v. Kornish Distributors, Inc.

119 A.D.2d 729, 501 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55654

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

DecidedApril 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 729 (Harty v. Kornish Distributors, Inc.) 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

Harty v. Kornish Distributors, Inc., 119 A.D.2d 729, 501 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Weiner, J.), entered October 3, 1984, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without prejudice to renewal after pretrial depositions.

Order affirmed, with costs.

There are questions of fact presented on this record concerning the credibility and accuracy of those individuals whose statements are relied upon by the appellants to support their claim that the negligence of the plaintiff’s decedent caused the accident and whether the defendant, Joseph Shuback, contributed, in whole or in part, to the occurrence of the accident. Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Weiner, J.), entered October 3, 1984, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without prejudice to renewal after pretrial depositions.

Order affirmed, with costs.

There are questions of fact presented on this record concerning the credibility and accuracy of those individuals whose statements are relied upon by the appellants to support their claim that the negligence of the plaintiff’s decedent caused the accident and whether the defendant, Joseph Shuback, contributed, in whole or in part, to the occurrence of the accident. Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 729, 501 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harty-v-kornish-distributors-inc-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack