Rogers v. Skinner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rogers v. Skinner

251 A.D.2d 395, 675 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6595

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1998·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated May 20, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Koch v Levenson, 225 AD2d 592; Williams v Econ, 221 AD2d 429; Wright v Morozinis, 220 AD2d 496; Greifer v Schneider, 215 AD2d 354; Cummins v Rose, 185 AD2d 839). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated May 20, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Koch v Levenson, 225 AD2d 592; Williams v Econ, 221 AD2d 429; Wright v Morozinis, 220 AD2d 496; Greifer v Schneider, 215 AD2d 354; Cummins v Rose, 185 AD2d 839). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Rogers v. Skinner, 251 A.D.2d 395, 675 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 395 (Rogers v. Skinner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related