Stevens v. Times Plaza Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stevens v. Times Plaza Development

180 A.D.2d 679

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 679 (Stevens v. Times Plaza Development) 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

Stevens v. Times Plaza Development, 180 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Volume Flowers, Inc., d/b/a Midtown Florist Nursery and Greenhouse, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated March 5, 1990, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to [680]*680the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. There remain material questions of fact necessitating a trial (see, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509; Pouso v City of New York, 177 AD2d 560; Copertino v Ward, 100 AD2d 565, 566-567). Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Volume Flowers, Inc., d/b/a Midtown Florist Nursery and Greenhouse, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated March 5, 1990, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to [680]*680the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. There remain material questions of fact necessitating a trial (see, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509; Pouso v City of New York, 177 AD2d 560; Copertino v Ward, 100 AD2d 565, 566-567). Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-times-plaza-development-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack