Humphrey v. Rochwil Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Humphrey v. Rochwil Associates

39 A.D.3d 1176, 832 N.Y.S.2d 854

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

DecidedApril 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 1176 (Humphrey v. Rochwil Associates) 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

Humphrey v. Rochwil Associates, 39 A.D.3d 1176, 832 N.Y.S.2d 854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered April 11, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motions of defendants Rochwil Associates, formerly designated Wilmorite Inc. or “X,” an unknown entity who is the owner of the Sibley Tower Bldg, in Rochester, New York, and Millar Elevator Service Co., formerly designated as “Z,” an unknown entity who serviced these elevators during the period complained of, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them and denied plaintiffs motion to compel discovery.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and . the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Gorski, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered April 11, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motions of defendants Rochwil Associates, formerly designated Wilmorite Inc. or “X,” an unknown entity who is the owner of the Sibley Tower Bldg, in Rochester, New York, and Millar Elevator Service Co., formerly designated as “Z,” an unknown entity who serviced these elevators during the period complained of, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them and denied plaintiffs motion to compel discovery.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and . the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Gorski, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 1176, 832 N.Y.S.2d 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrey-v-rochwil-associates-nyappdiv-2007.