Jinarain v. Westinghouse Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jinarain v. Westinghouse Elevator Co.

210 A.D.2d 18, 619 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11845

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 18 (Jinarain v. Westinghouse Elevator Co.) 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

Jinarain v. Westinghouse Elevator Co., 210 A.D.2d 18, 619 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about May 30, 1994, which denied defendants’, Westinghouse Elevator Company and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Inc., motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that defendants have not established, as a matter of law, their freedom from gross or wanton misconduct and thus properly denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for punitive damages. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about May 30, 1994, which denied defendants’, Westinghouse Elevator Company and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Inc., motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that defendants have not established, as a matter of law, their freedom from gross or wanton misconduct and thus properly denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for punitive damages. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 18, 619 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jinarain-v-westinghouse-elevator-co-nyappdiv-1994.