McLoughlin v. Jimmy Ray's Restaurant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McLoughlin v. Jimmy Ray's Restaurant

193 A.D.2d 467, 597 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813

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

DecidedMay 13, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 467 (McLoughlin v. Jimmy Ray's Restaurant) 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

McLoughlin v. Jimmy Ray's Restaurant, 193 A.D.2d 467, 597 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County [468]*468(William J. Davis, J.), entered on or about March 18, 1992, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with leave to plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint specifying the statute or ordinance violated by defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to defendants-respondents’ right to move for summary judgment anew.

The IAS Court correctly determined that plaintiff firefighters failed to submit any evidence to support their cause of action for negligence against defendants-respondents independent of the fire that brought plaintiffs to the premises (see, Maisch v City of New York, 181 AD2d 467). It was not an abuse of discretion for the IAS Court to grant plaintiffs leave to replead in order to specify the statute or ordinance violated and thereby show a viable cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-a (see, Maisch v City of New York, supra). Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County [468]*468(William J. Davis, J.), entered on or about March 18, 1992, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with leave to plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint specifying the statute or ordinance violated by defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to defendants-respondents’ right to move for summary judgment anew.

The IAS Court correctly determined that plaintiff firefighters failed to submit any evidence to support their cause of action for negligence against defendants-respondents independent of the fire that brought plaintiffs to the premises (see, Maisch v City of New York, 181 AD2d 467). It was not an abuse of discretion for the IAS Court to grant plaintiffs leave to replead in order to specify the statute or ordinance violated and thereby show a viable cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-a (see, Maisch v City of New York, supra). Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 467, 597 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcloughlin-v-jimmy-rays-restaurant-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack