Sommella v. Roach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sommella v. Roach

91 A.D.2d 630, 457 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19484

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 A.D.2d 630 (Sommella v. Roach) 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

Sommella v. Roach, 91 A.D.2d 630, 457 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an'action to recover damages, inter alia, for negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability, the appeals are from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated January 26,1982, which denied the appellants’ motions and cross motions for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision granting John Holze’s cross motion for summary judgment and by adding to the fifth decretal paragraph thereof after the word “denied” the following: “except as to John Holze’s cross motion which is granted.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiffs have failed to present a genuine issue of fact as to appellant John Holze (see Southern Assoc. v United Brands Co., 67 AD2d 199). Thus, his cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted (see Rubin v Irving Trust Co., 305 NY 288). We have considered the parties’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In an'action to recover damages, inter alia, for negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability, the appeals are from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated January 26,1982, which denied the appellants’ motions and cross motions for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision granting John Holze’s cross motion for summary judgment and by adding to the fifth decretal paragraph thereof after the word “denied” the following: “except as to John Holze’s cross motion which is granted.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiffs have failed to present a genuine issue of fact as to appellant John Holze (see Southern Assoc. v United Brands Co., 67 AD2d 199). Thus, his cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted (see Rubin v Irving Trust Co., 305 NY 288). We have considered the parties’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 630, 457 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sommella-v-roach-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack