Torregrossa v. Bohack Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torregrossa v. Bohack Corp.

42 A.D.2d 848, 346 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3624

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

DecidedAugust 6, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 848 (Torregrossa v. Bohack Corp.) 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

Torregrossa v. Bohack Corp., 42 A.D.2d 848, 346 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of services, the defendant-third-party plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 9, 1972, which granted the third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, (2) a judgment of the same court entered November 30, 1972 thereon and (3) an order of the same court dated December 20, 1972, which denied reargument of the motion for summary judgment. Order of November 9, 1972 and judgment entered thereon reversed, on the law, and motion for summary judgment denied. Triable issues of fact are present requiring denial of the motion for summary judgment. Appeal from order dated December 20, 1972 dismissed. An order denying reargument of a motion is not appealable. Appellant is awarded one' bill of $20 costs and disbursements to cover all the appeals. Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, 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 and loss of services, the defendant-third-party plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 9, 1972, which granted the third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, (2) a judgment of the same court entered November 30, 1972 thereon and (3) an order of the same court dated December 20, 1972, which denied reargument of the motion for summary judgment. Order of November 9, 1972 and judgment entered thereon reversed, on the law, and motion for summary judgment denied. Triable issues of fact are present requiring denial of the motion for summary judgment. Appeal from order dated December 20, 1972 dismissed. An order denying reargument of a motion is not appealable. Appellant is awarded one' bill of $20 costs and disbursements to cover all the appeals. Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 848, 346 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torregrossa-v-bohack-corp-nyappdiv-1973.