Pilger v. Bergner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pilger v. Bergner

12 A.D.3d 656, 784 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14567

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 656 (Pilger v. Bergner) 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

Pilger v. Bergner, 12 A.D.3d 656, 784 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant Associated Foods, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated February 9, 2004, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and the third-party defendant Aires Colombianos, Inc., cross-appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c]; [e]); and it is further

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In response to the showing by the third-party defendant Associated Foods, Inc. (hereinafter Associated), that it did not own, occupy, or control that portion of the basement where the plaintiffs accident allegedly occurred, the owners, the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Walter Bergner, as co-executor of [657]*657the estates of David Bergner and Lee Bergner, showed the existence of factual issues requiring the trial thereof. Accordingly, Associated’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Zappel v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 285 AD2d 389 [2001]; see generally Butler v Rafferty, 100 NY2d 265, 269-272 [2003]; cf. Gehler v City of New York, 261 AD2d 506 [1999]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, 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 third-party defendant Associated Foods, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated February 9, 2004, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and the third-party defendant Aires Colombianos, Inc., cross-appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c]; [e]); and it is further

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In response to the showing by the third-party defendant Associated Foods, Inc. (hereinafter Associated), that it did not own, occupy, or control that portion of the basement where the plaintiffs accident allegedly occurred, the owners, the defendants third-party plaintiffs, Walter Bergner, as co-executor of [657]*657the estates of David Bergner and Lee Bergner, showed the existence of factual issues requiring the trial thereof. Accordingly, Associated’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Zappel v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 285 AD2d 389 [2001]; see generally Butler v Rafferty, 100 NY2d 265, 269-272 [2003]; cf. Gehler v City of New York, 261 AD2d 506 [1999]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 656, 784 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pilger-v-bergner-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack