Schreiber v. Cimato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schreiber v. Cimato

299 A.D.2d 813, 750 N.Y.S.2d 546, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10824

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2002

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 813 (Schreiber v. Cimato) 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

Schreiber v. Cimato, 299 A.D.2d 813, 750 N.Y.S.2d 546, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from, those parts of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mahoney, J.), entered December 4, 2001, that denied defendants’ motion to preclude evidence of nonremediation damages and to dismiss all causes of action except the first cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action and dismissing that cause of action and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in Schreiber v Cimato ([appeal No. 2] 299 AD2d 813). Present — Pine, J.P., Hayes, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from, those parts of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mahoney, J.), entered December 4, 2001, that denied defendants’ motion to preclude evidence of nonremediation damages and to dismiss all causes of action except the first cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action and dismissing that cause of action and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in Schreiber v Cimato ([appeal No. 2] 299 AD2d 813). Present — Pine, J.P., Hayes, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 813, 750 N.Y.S.2d 546, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schreiber-v-cimato-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack