O'Donnell v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Donnell v. Cohen

213 A.D.2d 610, 624 N.Y.S.2d 946

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 610 (O'Donnell v. Cohen) 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

O'Donnell v. Cohen, 213 A.D.2d 610, 624 N.Y.S.2d 946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Gary F. Cohen appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated September 27, 1993, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against him and denied, with leave to renew, his cross motion for a severance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and that the defendant failed to come forward with admissible proof demonstrating the necessity of a trial on an issue of fact (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either academic or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ.

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, etc., the defendant Gary F. Cohen appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated September 27, 1993, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against him and denied, with leave to renew, his cross motion for a severance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and that the defendant failed to come forward with admissible proof demonstrating the necessity of a trial on an issue of fact (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either academic or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 610, 624 N.Y.S.2d 946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odonnell-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack