Punch v. Associates Leasing, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Punch v. Associates Leasing, Inc.

40 A.D.3d 269, 833 N.Y.S.2d 391

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

DecidedMay 3, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 269 (Punch v. Associates Leasing, Inc.) 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

Punch v. Associates Leasing, Inc., 40 A.D.3d 269, 833 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered May 5, 2006, which granted the motion of defendant Associates Leasing for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, and bringing up for review, pursuant to CPLR 5517 (b), an order, same court and Justice, entered September 18, 2006, which, upon renewal, adhered to the prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As we have held in another case arising from the same accident (Stanley v Punch, 35 AD3d 188 [2006]), where the domicile of the parties is split between states and the situs of the accident was in a third state, the law of the situs state should control. This case is controlled by that holding and, accordingly, by the law of New Jersey, under which plaintiff has no claim against defendants-respondents. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered May 5, 2006, which granted the motion of defendant Associates Leasing for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, and bringing up for review, pursuant to CPLR 5517 (b), an order, same court and Justice, entered September 18, 2006, which, upon renewal, adhered to the prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As we have held in another case arising from the same accident (Stanley v Punch, 35 AD3d 188 [2006]), where the domicile of the parties is split between states and the situs of the accident was in a third state, the law of the situs state should control. This case is controlled by that holding and, accordingly, by the law of New Jersey, under which plaintiff has no claim against defendants-respondents. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 269, 833 N.Y.S.2d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/punch-v-associates-leasing-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack