Kasper v. Town of Smithtown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kasper v. Town of Smithtown

123 A.D.2d 743, 507 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60888

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 743 (Kasper v. Town of Smithtown) 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

Kasper v. Town of Smithtown, 123 A.D.2d 743, 507 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for a de facto taking, (1) the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated October 29, 1984, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment, inter alia, on the ground that the action was barred by collateral estoppel, and granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to strike its second affirmative defense; and (2) the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied those branches of his motion which were to strike the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses, and for partial summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment dismissing the eighth affirmative defense, and as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

[744]*744We dismiss the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel as being without merit (see, Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65; Kret v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Center, 93 AD2d 449, affd 61 NY2d 861). In doing so, we note that on a motion for summary judgment, this court has the power to search the record and grant relief to a nonmoving or nonappealing party (see, Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for a de facto taking, (1) the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated October 29, 1984, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment, inter alia, on the ground that the action was barred by collateral estoppel, and granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to strike its second affirmative defense; and (2) the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied those branches of his motion which were to strike the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses, and for partial summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment dismissing the eighth affirmative defense, and as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

[744]*744We dismiss the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel as being without merit (see, Schwartz v Public Administrator of County of Bronx, 24 NY2d 65; Kret v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Center, 93 AD2d 449, affd 61 NY2d 861). In doing so, we note that on a motion for summary judgment, this court has the power to search the record and grant relief to a nonmoving or nonappealing party (see, Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 743, 507 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kasper-v-town-of-smithtown-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack