Nagel v. Nagel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nagel v. Nagel

276 A.D.2d 679, 716 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10660

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 679 (Nagel v. Nagel) 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

Nagel v. Nagel, 276 A.D.2d 679, 716 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated February 24, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability since there are questions of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Coogan v Ed's Bargain Buggy Corp., 262 AD2d 596).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Sullivan, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated February 24, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability since there are questions of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Coogan v Ed's Bargain Buggy Corp., 262 AD2d 596).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 679, 716 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagel-v-nagel-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack