St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Sensus Technologies, Inc.
297 A.D.2d 670, 747 N.Y.2d 185, 747 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8427
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 16, 2002·Published
Opinion
The defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Camacho v East Ramapo Cent. School Dist., 262 AD2d 263).
[671] The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Sensus Technologies, Inc., 297 A.D.2d 670, 747 N.Y.2d 185, 747 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).
297 A.D.2d 670 (St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Sensus Technologies, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Camacho v. East Ramapo Central School District
262 A.D.2d 263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)