Spano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spano v. City of New York

144 A.D.2d 355, 534 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11241

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A.D.2d 355 (Spano v. City of New York) 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

Spano v. City of New York, 144 A.D.2d 355, 534 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Baldwin & Cornelius, P. C. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered May 28, 1987, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Our review of the record persuades us that triable issues of fact exist with respect to the various claims and cross claims asserted against the defendant Baldwin & Cornelius, P. C. (see, e.g., D’Andria v County of Suffolk, 112 AD2d 397). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Sullivan and Harwood, 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 Baldwin & Cornelius, P. C. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered May 28, 1987, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Our review of the record persuades us that triable issues of fact exist with respect to the various claims and cross claims asserted against the defendant Baldwin & Cornelius, P. C. (see, e.g., D’Andria v County of Suffolk, 112 AD2d 397). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 355, 534 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spano-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack