Little v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Little v. City of New York

285 A.D.2d 584, 728 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7598

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

DecidedJuly 23, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 584 (Little v. City of New York) 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. City of New York, 285 A.D.2d 584, 728 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7598 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Welsbach Electric Corp., s/h/a Wellsbach Electric Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated February 10, 2000, as, upon granting that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, in effect, denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims asserted against it by the defendant City of New York and deemed those cross claims to be a third-party action.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims asserted by the defendant City of New York as there remain issues of fact with respect to those cross claims.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio and Feuerstein, 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, the defendant Welsbach Electric Corp., s/h/a Wellsbach Electric Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated February 10, 2000, as, upon granting that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, in effect, denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims asserted against it by the defendant City of New York and deemed those cross claims to be a third-party action.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims asserted by the defendant City of New York as there remain issues of fact with respect to those cross claims.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 584, 728 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.