Little v. AAA Sawdust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Little v. AAA Sawdust Co.

276 A.D.2d 754, 715 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10944

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 754 (Little v. AAA Sawdust 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

Little v. AAA Sawdust Co., 276 A.D.2d 754, 715 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Livio Forte appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated October 6, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

[755]*755Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, as a triable issue of fact remains with respect to the plaintiff’s employment status (see, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553; Kramer v NAB Constr. Corp., 250 AD2d 818; Fontus v D & J School Bus, 249 AD2d 361). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, 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 Livio Forte appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated October 6, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

[755]*755Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, as a triable issue of fact remains with respect to the plaintiff’s employment status (see, Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553; Kramer v NAB Constr. Corp., 250 AD2d 818; Fontus v D & J School Bus, 249 AD2d 361). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 754, 715 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-aaa-sawdust-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack