Silkie v. Barbarino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silkie v. Barbarino

55 A.D.2d 910, 390 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10154

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 910 (Silkie v. Barbarino) 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

Silkie v. Barbarino, 55 A.D.2d 910, 390 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Consolidated Edison appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 24, 1976, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order modified by adding thereto a provision that the denial of the appellant’s motion is without prejudice to its renewal after the completion of discovery proceedings. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While we believe, under the circumstances presented here, that Special Term’s denial of the appellant’s motion for summary judgment was not improper at this stage of the action, we also believe that the appellant should have the opportunity to renew its motion after the completion of discovery proceedings. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant Consolidated Edison appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 24, 1976, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order modified by adding thereto a provision that the denial of the appellant’s motion is without prejudice to its renewal after the completion of discovery proceedings. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While we believe, under the circumstances presented here, that Special Term’s denial of the appellant’s motion for summary judgment was not improper at this stage of the action, we also believe that the appellant should have the opportunity to renew its motion after the completion of discovery proceedings. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 910, 390 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silkie-v-barbarino-nyappdiv-1977.