Ojeda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ojeda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

112 A.D.2d 205, 491 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55953

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 205 (Ojeda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.) 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

Ojeda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 112 A.D.2d 205, 491 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55953 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on the theories of negligence and strict products liability, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered May 17, 1984, which granted plaintiffs’ motion, denominated as one for reargument but deemed renewal by the court, and, upon such "renewal”, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A review of the record reveals that there are triable issues of fact. We note, however, that plaintiffs’ motion was properly one for reargument, as denominated, rather than renewal. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, 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 based on the theories of negligence and strict products liability, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered May 17, 1984, which granted plaintiffs’ motion, denominated as one for reargument but deemed renewal by the court, and, upon such "renewal”, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A review of the record reveals that there are triable issues of fact. We note, however, that plaintiffs’ motion was properly one for reargument, as denominated, rather than renewal. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 205, 491 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ojeda-v-sears-roebuck-co-nyappdiv-1985.