Lo Presti v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lo Presti v. New York Telephone Co.

23 A.D.2d 870, 259 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4237

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

DecidedMay 10, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 870 (Lo Presti v. New York Telephone 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

Lo Presti v. New York Telephone Co., 23 A.D.2d 870, 259 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, etc., the defendants appeal as follows from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County: (1) from so much of an order entered November 6, 1964, as granted summary judgment to plaintiff Anna Lo Prestí, severed her action and directed an assessment of her damages; and (2) from so much of an order, entered January 13, 1965 upon reargument, as adhered to the court’s original decision. Order of January 13, 1965, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied in toto. Appeal from order of November 6, 1964 dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, triable issues of fact are presented which preclude the granting of summary judgment (of. Shea v. Judson, 283 N. Y. 393; Esmark v. Ta/ndler, 204 App. Div. 554; Moore v. Washburn, 14 A D 2d 474). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, 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 injury, etc., the defendants appeal as follows from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County: (1) from so much of an order entered November 6, 1964, as granted summary judgment to plaintiff Anna Lo Prestí, severed her action and directed an assessment of her damages; and (2) from so much of an order, entered January 13, 1965 upon reargument, as adhered to the court’s original decision. Order of January 13, 1965, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied in toto. Appeal from order of November 6, 1964 dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, triable issues of fact are presented which preclude the granting of summary judgment (of. Shea v. Judson, 283 N. Y. 393; Esmark v. Ta/ndler, 204 App. Div. 554; Moore v. Washburn, 14 A D 2d 474). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 870, 259 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lo-presti-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack