Moas v. Empire Insurance Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moas v. Empire Insurance Group

265 A.D.2d 311, 696 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9626

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 311 (Moas v. Empire Insurance Group) 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

Moas v. Empire Insurance Group, 265 A.D.2d 311, 696 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated June 26, 1998, which, in effect, denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendant’s failure to answer the complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the complaint since no cause of action was stated against the defendant.

[312]*312The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated June 26, 1998, which, in effect, denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendant’s failure to answer the complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the complaint since no cause of action was stated against the defendant.

[312]*312The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 311, 696 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moas-v-empire-insurance-group-nyappdiv-1999.