Kupke v. Mullane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kupke v. Mullane

207 A.D.2d 432, 616 N.Y.S.2d 226

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

DecidedAugust 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 432 (Kupke v. Mullane) 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

Kupke v. Mullane, 207 A.D.2d 432, 616 N.Y.S.2d 226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries, the defendants Dorothy Mullane and Mullane Associates, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 13, 1992, as amended by order dated November 16, 1992, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ causes of action sounding in nuisance.

Ordered that the order as amended is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants failed to establish that they were entitled to judgment in their favor on the causes of action sounding in nuisance. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [b]). Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Krausman, 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 wrongful death and personal injuries, the defendants Dorothy Mullane and Mullane Associates, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 13, 1992, as amended by order dated November 16, 1992, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ causes of action sounding in nuisance.

Ordered that the order as amended is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants failed to establish that they were entitled to judgment in their favor on the causes of action sounding in nuisance. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [b]). Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 432, 616 N.Y.S.2d 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kupke-v-mullane-nyappdiv-1994.