Hernandez v. R & M Amusement, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. R & M Amusement, Inc.

209 A.D.2d 472, 619 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11239

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 14, 1994·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff Amusement Realty Corp. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), dated March 31, 1993, as denied (1) the branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) the branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that material questions of fact exist precluding any award of summary judgment to the defendant third-party plaintiff Amusement Realty Corp. (see, Rudnitsky v Robbins, 191 AD2d 488, 489; cf., Hecht v Vanderbilt Assocs., 141 AD2d 696, 699; see also, Hesse v Speece, 204 AD2d 514; Forte v Bahary, 181 AD2d 657). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Florio, 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 defendant third-party plaintiff Amusement Realty Corp. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), dated March 31, 1993, as denied (1) the branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) the branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that material questions of fact exist precluding any award of summary judgment to the defendant third-party plaintiff Amusement Realty Corp. (see, Rudnitsky v Robbins, 191 AD2d 488, 489; cf., Hecht v Vanderbilt Assocs., 141 AD2d 696, 699; see also, Hesse v Speece, 204 AD2d 514; Forte v Bahary, 181 AD2d 657). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Florio, JJ., concur.

Hernandez v. R & M Amusement, Inc., 209 A.D.2d 472, 619 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

209 A.D.2d 472 (Hernandez v. R & M Amusement, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related