Sterling v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sterling v. Town of Hempstead

260 A.D.2d 628, 687 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4305

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 628 (Sterling v. Town of Hempstead) 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

Sterling v. Town of Hempstead, 260 A.D.2d 628, 687 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated June 11, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law, and were not entitled to summary judgment based solely on claimed deficiencies in the plaintiffs proof (see, Porter v Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 224 AD2d 674). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated June 11, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment in their favor as a matter of law, and were not entitled to summary judgment based solely on claimed deficiencies in the plaintiffs proof (see, Porter v Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 224 AD2d 674). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 628, 687 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-v-town-of-hempstead-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack