Martinez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. City of New York

262 A.D.2d 289, 691 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5912

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 289 (Martinez 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

Martinez v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 289, 691 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant PJR Construction Corp. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated April 20, 1998, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, [290]*290on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellant are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

Since the record clearly indicates that the appellant was merely a limited partner and did not take part in the control of the business, it was not a proper party to this suit and should have been granted summary judgment (see, Partnership Law §§ 115, 96; Board of Mgrs. v Fairways at N. Hills, 150 AD2d 32, 39-40; Millard v Newmark & Co., 24 AD2d 333). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman 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, the defendant PJR Construction Corp. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated April 20, 1998, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, [290]*290on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellant are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

Since the record clearly indicates that the appellant was merely a limited partner and did not take part in the control of the business, it was not a proper party to this suit and should have been granted summary judgment (see, Partnership Law §§ 115, 96; Board of Mgrs. v Fairways at N. Hills, 150 AD2d 32, 39-40; Millard v Newmark & Co., 24 AD2d 333). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 289, 691 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack