Ramos v. Blum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramos v. Blum

256 A.D.2d 453, 683 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13510

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 453 (Ramos v. Blum) 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

Ramos v. Blum, 256 A.D.2d 453, 683 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover no-fault first-party benefits, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated December 17, 1997, as denied her motion for summary judgment against the defendant Allstate Insurance Company.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court [454]*454properly concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable under the circumstances of this case (see generally, Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455; Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover no-fault first-party benefits, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated December 17, 1997, as denied her motion for summary judgment against the defendant Allstate Insurance Company.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court [454]*454properly concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable under the circumstances of this case (see generally, Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455; Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 291). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 453, 683 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-blum-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack