Tepersak v. Norton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tepersak v. Norton

26 A.D.2d 940, 275 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3135

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 940 (Tepersak v. Norton) 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

Tepersak v. Norton, 26 A.D.2d 940, 275 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by the owners of certain real property, who had engaged defendant surveyors to survey and monument the property, to recover damages for negligence in surveying and monumenting the property, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 6, 1964, which denied their motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, issues requiring trial were raised by the affidavits. As the complaint is amendable, summary judgment was properly denied (see Curry v. MacKenzie, 239 N. Y. 267, 272; Rock v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 16 A D 2d 823). Christ, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by the owners of certain real property, who had engaged defendant surveyors to survey and monument the property, to recover damages for negligence in surveying and monumenting the property, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 6, 1964, which denied their motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, issues requiring trial were raised by the affidavits. As the complaint is amendable, summary judgment was properly denied (see Curry v. MacKenzie, 239 N. Y. 267, 272; Rock v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 16 A D 2d 823). Christ, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 940, 275 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tepersak-v-norton-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack