Smith v. Baldwin-Lima Hamilton Sales Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Baldwin-Lima Hamilton Sales Corp.

160 A.D.2d 935, 555 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789

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

DecidedApril 23, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D.2d 935 (Smith v. Baldwin-Lima Hamilton Sales Corp.) 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

Smith v. Baldwin-Lima Hamilton Sales Corp., 160 A.D.2d 935, 555 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered March 13, 1989, which granted the motion of the defendants Armour and Company Inc., and Greyhound Lines, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to set forth evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue as to the successor liability of either the respondent Armour and Company, Inc., or the respondent [936]*936Greyhound Lines, Inc. (see, Grant-Howard Assocs. v General Housewares Corp., 63 NY2d 291; Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J. P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, 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, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered March 13, 1989, which granted the motion of the defendants Armour and Company Inc., and Greyhound Lines, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

We conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to set forth evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue as to the successor liability of either the respondent Armour and Company, Inc., or the respondent [936]*936Greyhound Lines, Inc. (see, Grant-Howard Assocs. v General Housewares Corp., 63 NY2d 291; Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J. P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 935, 555 N.Y.S.2d 625, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-baldwin-lima-hamilton-sales-corp-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack