Lewis v. Niagara Frontier Roofing & Insulating Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Niagara Frontier Roofing & Insulating Co.

139 A.D.2d 968, 527 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4204

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

DecidedApril 8, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.2d 968 (Lewis v. Niagara Frontier Roofing & Insulating Co.) 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

Lewis v. Niagara Frontier Roofing & Insulating Co., 139 A.D.2d 968, 527 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in directing a verdict against plaintiffs on their fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action for negligence and breach of contract and on the claim contained in their first cause of action that defendants negligently damaged their awning. Plaintiffs presented a prima facie case on those claims and it was error for the court to dismiss them summarily. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial on those causes of action. The remainder of plaintiffs’ claims were properly dismissed. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Broughton, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in directing a verdict against plaintiffs on their fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action for negligence and breach of contract and on the claim contained in their first cause of action that defendants negligently damaged their awning. Plaintiffs presented a prima facie case on those claims and it was error for the court to dismiss them summarily. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial on those causes of action. The remainder of plaintiffs’ claims were properly dismissed. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Broughton, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 968, 527 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-niagara-frontier-roofing-insulating-co-nyappdiv-1988.