Kanzenberg v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kanzenberg v. New York City Transit Authority

244 A.D.2d 532, 665 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11955

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 532 (Kanzenberg v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Kanzenberg v. New York City Transit Authority, 244 A.D.2d 532, 665 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Fay Kanzenberg, as administrator of the estate of Mary L. Cicero, appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated April 6, 1995, which granted the defendant New York City Transit Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 7, 1995, which denied her motion to renew and/or reargue.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated December 7, 1995, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as reviewed, for reasons stated by Justice Jackson at the Supreme Court (see also, Byrd v New York City Tr. Auth., 228 AD2d 537); and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, McGinity and Luciano, 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 Fay Kanzenberg, as administrator of the estate of Mary L. Cicero, appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated April 6, 1995, which granted the defendant New York City Transit Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 7, 1995, which denied her motion to renew and/or reargue.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated December 7, 1995, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as reviewed, for reasons stated by Justice Jackson at the Supreme Court (see also, Byrd v New York City Tr. Auth., 228 AD2d 537); and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 532, 665 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanzenberg-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack