Rivenburgh v. Macri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivenburgh v. Macri

80 A.D.2d 889

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.2d 889 (Rivenburgh v. Macri) 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

Rivenburgh v. Macri, 80 A.D.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a wrongful death action, defendant appeals from a judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 14, 1980, which, inter alia, denied his motion for summary judgment as to the first and second causes of action in the verified complaint. Judgment and order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was directed at all four causes of action. Since plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action, charging violations of section 11-101 of the General Obligations Law, were in fact dismissed on the instant motion, albeit for legal insufficiency, defendant is not aggrieved thereby and we do not pass on that portion of the disposition in any respect. As to the first and second causes of action, charging common-law negligence in the maintenance of defendant’s marina facilities, we agree that issues of fact preclude summary disposition as a matter of law. Hopkins, J.P., Damiani, Mangano and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a wrongful death action, defendant appeals from a judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 14, 1980, which, inter alia, denied his motion for summary judgment as to the first and second causes of action in the verified complaint. Judgment and order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was directed at all four causes of action. Since plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action, charging violations of section 11-101 of the General Obligations Law, were in fact dismissed on the instant motion, albeit for legal insufficiency, defendant is not aggrieved thereby and we do not pass on that portion of the disposition in any respect. As to the first and second causes of action, charging common-law negligence in the maintenance of defendant’s marina facilities, we agree that issues of fact preclude summary disposition as a matter of law. Hopkins, J.P., Damiani, Mangano and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivenburgh-v-macri-nyappdiv-1981.