Rossi v. Marmon Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rossi v. Marmon Enterprises, Inc.

277 A.D.2d 440, 715 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12283

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 440 (Rossi v. Marmon Enterprises, 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

Rossi v. Marmon Enterprises, Inc., 277 A.D.2d 440, 715 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated [441]*441January 10, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its cross claim against the defendant Marmon Enterprises, Inc.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., which was for summary judgment on its cross claim (see, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607, 612; Zito v 241 Church St. Corp., 223 AD2d 353, 355; Farrar v Teicholz, 173 AD2d 674). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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 defendant Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated [441]*441January 10, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its cross claim against the defendant Marmon Enterprises, Inc.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., which was for summary judgment on its cross claim (see, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607, 612; Zito v 241 Church St. Corp., 223 AD2d 353, 355; Farrar v Teicholz, 173 AD2d 674). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 440, 715 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rossi-v-marmon-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack