King v. M & S Homes, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. M & S Homes, Inc.

172 A.D.2d 803, 570 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5362

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

DecidedApril 29, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 803 (King v. M & S Homes, Inc.) 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

King v. M & S Homes, Inc., 172 A.D.2d 803, 570 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), dated September 26, 1989, as granted the motion of the defendants M & S Homes, Inc., Donald Spillane, and Gary Marcus and the separate motion of the defendant Raymond Rizzo Associates, Inc., for summary judg[804]*804ment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, for reasons stated by Justice Nah-man in the Supreme Court. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), dated September 26, 1989, as granted the motion of the defendants M & S Homes, Inc., Donald Spillane, and Gary Marcus and the separate motion of the defendant Raymond Rizzo Associates, Inc., for summary judg[804]*804ment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, for reasons stated by Justice Nah-man in the Supreme Court. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 803, 570 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-m-s-homes-inc-nyappdiv-1991.