Harub v. Chandris Lines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harub v. Chandris Lines, Inc.

49 A.D.2d 850

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 850 (Harub v. Chandris Lines, 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

Harub v. Chandris Lines, Inc., 49 A.D.2d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered April 21, 1975, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Scrutiny of the record discloses that the issue of ownership and control of the vessel Amerikanis aboard which plaintiff was injured must await a plenary hearing. It is well recognized that on motions for summary judgment " 'issue-finding rather than issue-determination, is the key to the procedure’ ” (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404, citing Esteve v ABAD, 271 App Div 725, 727). Although there is proof in this record to support defendant’s position of lack of ownership and control, there also exists proof on plaintiff’s part to support a contrary conclusion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered April 21, 1975, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Scrutiny of the record discloses that the issue of ownership and control of the vessel Amerikanis aboard which plaintiff was injured must await a plenary hearing. It is well recognized that on motions for summary judgment " 'issue-finding rather than issue-determination, is the key to the procedure’ ” (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404, citing Esteve v ABAD, 271 App Div 725, 727). Although there is proof in this record to support defendant’s position of lack of ownership and control, there also exists proof on plaintiff’s part to support a contrary conclusion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harub-v-chandris-lines-inc-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack