Javix v. Hatcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Javix v. Hatcher

199 A.D.2d 308, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11833

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 1993·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff purportedly appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), entered September 3, 1991, which, inter alia, granted the motion by the respondents, Delores Hatcher and Charles Hatcher, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the defendant Thomas A. Nero cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the plaintiff’s purported appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents, Delores Hatcher and Charles Hatcher, are awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant-respondent and the respondent-appellant.

We agree with the finding that there are questions of fact which preclude granting summary judgment to the defendant Thomas A. Nero (see, Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966; Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361; Troyan v Riverhead Cent. School Dist., 113 AD2d 884). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Balletta and Santucci, 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, the plaintiff purportedly appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), entered September 3, 1991, which, inter alia, granted the motion by the respondents, Delores Hatcher and Charles Hatcher, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the defendant Thomas A. Nero cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the plaintiff’s purported appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents, Delores Hatcher and Charles Hatcher, are awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellant-respondent and the respondent-appellant.

We agree with the finding that there are questions of fact which preclude granting summary judgment to the defendant Thomas A. Nero (see, Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966; Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361; Troyan v Riverhead Cent. School Dist., 113 AD2d 884). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Balletta and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Javix v. Hatcher, 199 A.D.2d 308, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

199 A.D.2d 308 (Javix v. Hatcher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related