Pomerantz v. Barnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pomerantz v. Barnett

252 A.D.2d 518, 675 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8260

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D.2d 518 (Pomerantz v. Barnett) 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

Pomerantz v. Barnett, 252 A.D.2d 518, 675 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated August 28, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs have raised no triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Leatrice Pomerantz were proximately caused by the negligence, if any, of Doris Barnett or the decedent, Robert Barnett. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated August 28, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs have raised no triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Leatrice Pomerantz were proximately caused by the negligence, if any, of Doris Barnett or the decedent, Robert Barnett. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 518, 675 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pomerantz-v-barnett-nyappdiv-1998.