State v. Melville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Melville

29 A.D.2d 709, 286 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4892

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 709 (State v. Melville) 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

State v. Melville, 29 A.D.2d 709, 286 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal and cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Albany County, denying a motion and cross motions for summary judgment. The affidavit submitted by the State of an employee of the boiler manufacturer indicating that the cause of the break was due to a defect in manufacture does not preclude the possibility of other concurring causes and in any event is not alone conclusive on the issue involved. Nor do we find advanced on the present record arguments which would mandate summary judgment in favor of any litigant. Accordingly, Special Term correctly determined that factual issues exist which require a plenary trial. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal and cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Albany County, denying a motion and cross motions for summary judgment. The affidavit submitted by the State of an employee of the boiler manufacturer indicating that the cause of the break was due to a defect in manufacture does not preclude the possibility of other concurring causes and in any event is not alone conclusive on the issue involved. Nor do we find advanced on the present record arguments which would mandate summary judgment in favor of any litigant. Accordingly, Special Term correctly determined that factual issues exist which require a plenary trial. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 709, 286 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-melville-nyappdiv-1968.