Ramlall v. Colonial Steel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramlall v. Colonial Steel Corp.

307 A.D.2d 260, 761 N.Y.S.2d 870

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

DecidedJuly 7, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 260 (Ramlall v. Colonial Steel Corp.) 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

Ramlall v. Colonial Steel Corp., 307 A.D.2d 260, 761 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant, Colonial Steel Corp., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D. Schmidt, J.), dated December 13, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant, Colonial Steel Corp., the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant failed to tender sufficient evidence demonstrating the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Mastro, 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, etc., the defendant, Colonial Steel Corp., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D. Schmidt, J.), dated December 13, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant, Colonial Steel Corp., the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant failed to tender sufficient evidence demonstrating the absence of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 260, 761 N.Y.S.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramlall-v-colonial-steel-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack