Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Massimino v. Target Corp.

Massimino v. Target Corp.

82 A.D.3d 941, 918 N.Y.2d 734
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 2011·Published

Opinion

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination granting the separate motions of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; Marchese v Skenderi, 51 AD3d 642 [2008]; Mazzella v City of New York, 72 AD3d 755, 756 [2010]; Ronconi v Denzel Assoc., 20 AD3d 559, 560 [2005]; Dowden v Long Is. R.R., 305 AD2d 631 [2003]; Ioele v Wal-Mart Stores, 290 AD2d 614, 616 [2002]; Camacho v Garcia, 273 AD2d 835 [2000]). Angiolillo, J.E, Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Massimino v. Target Corp., 82 A.D.3d 941, 918 N.Y.2d 734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

82 A.D.3d 941 (Massimino v. Target Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ronconi v. Denzel Associates
20 A.D.3d 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Marchese v. Skenderi
51 A.D.3d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Mazzella v. City of New York
72 A.D.3d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Camacho v. Garcia
273 A.D.2d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Ioele v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
290 A.D.2d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Dowden v. Long Island Rail Road
305 A.D.2d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)