Klein v. Schifenbauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. Schifenbauer

168 A.D.2d 430

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 430 (Klein v. Schifenbauer) 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

Klein v. Schifenbauer, 168 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Milton Schifenbauer appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 17, 1988, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it asserted a cause of action against him individually.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action cognizable at law against the defendant Milton Schifenbauer individually, sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 NY2d 332; Rosenberg v Mermelstein, 116 AD2d 712; see also, Guggenheimer v Ginzberg, 43 NY2d 268, 275). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, 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, etc., the defendant Milton Schifenbauer appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 17, 1988, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it asserted a cause of action against him individually.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action cognizable at law against the defendant Milton Schifenbauer individually, sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 NY2d 332; Rosenberg v Mermelstein, 116 AD2d 712; see also, Guggenheimer v Ginzberg, 43 NY2d 268, 275). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-schifenbauer-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack