Lichtenstein v. Perfit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lichtenstein v. Perfit

248 A.D.2d 596, 669 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2881

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 596 (Lichtenstein v. Perfit) 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

Lichtenstein v. Perfit, 248 A.D.2d 596, 669 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Richard Perfit, Alice Wetchler, Martin Perfit, and Ram Realty Associates appeal from so much of an order of Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated January 24, 1997, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them since there are material issues of fact which require a trial (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, 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 defendants Richard Perfit, Alice Wetchler, Martin Perfit, and Ram Realty Associates appeal from so much of an order of Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated January 24, 1997, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them since there are material issues of fact which require a trial (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 596, 669 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lichtenstein-v-perfit-nyappdiv-1998.