Mahone v. Washington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mahone v. Washington

17 A.D.3d 1059, 793 N.Y.S.2d 786, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4676

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

DecidedApril 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 1059 (Mahone v. Washington) 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

Mahone v. Washington, 17 A.D.3d 1059, 793 N.Y.S.2d 786, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Harold L. Galloway, J.), entered July 21, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of defendants Anthony J. Pilato (incorrectly sued as Anthony J. Polito) and Genesee Brewing Co. seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We note at the outset that Supreme Court erred in determining that the cross motion failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 3212 (b). Rather, the record establishes that the cross motion incorporated by reference copies of the pleadings previously submitted on the initial motion for summary judgment (see generally Matter of Board of Commrs. of Washington Park of City of Albany, 52 NY 131, 133-134 [1873]). Nevertheless, we conclude that the court properly denied the cross motion because there is a triable issue of fact [1060]*1060precluding summary judgment, and we otherwise affirm for reasons stated at Supreme Court. Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Harold L. Galloway, J.), entered July 21, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of defendants Anthony J. Pilato (incorrectly sued as Anthony J. Polito) and Genesee Brewing Co. seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We note at the outset that Supreme Court erred in determining that the cross motion failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 3212 (b). Rather, the record establishes that the cross motion incorporated by reference copies of the pleadings previously submitted on the initial motion for summary judgment (see generally Matter of Board of Commrs. of Washington Park of City of Albany, 52 NY 131, 133-134 [1873]). Nevertheless, we conclude that the court properly denied the cross motion because there is a triable issue of fact [1060]*1060precluding summary judgment, and we otherwise affirm for reasons stated at Supreme Court. Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 1059, 793 N.Y.S.2d 786, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahone-v-washington-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack