Turnbull v. MTA New York City Transit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turnbull v. MTA New York City Transit

28 A.D.3d 647, 812 N.Y.S.2d 369

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

DecidedApril 18, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 647 (Turnbull v. MTA New York City Transit) 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

Turnbull v. MTA New York City Transit, 28 A.D.3d 647, 812 N.Y.S.2d 369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Navigation Law § 181 to recover damages resulting from the discharge of petroleum, the plaintiffs James M. Turnbull, Jocelyn Mondesir, Lucille J. Caputo, Cesar Ramos, Linda Biancorosso, Nicholas Biancorosso, Evelyn Israel, Charles S. Hughes, Mary E. Hughes, Loretta Stucchio, Eileen M. Ball, Philip M. Scotto, Geraldine L. Scotto, Anna Rita Oppedisano, Vincenzo Oppedisano, Maryse Fecu, Cathryn Thom, Veronica M. Muscante, Charles R. Muscante, Steven Gregos, Joanne Gregos, Anthony Deprisco, Joseph A. Hunt, Junior A. Edwards, Bernice Dalton, Milton McCormack, and Jennifer Rodriguez appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated July 10, 2003, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from was superseded by an order of the same court dated July 27, 2004, made upon renewal. In light of our determination of the appeal from that order (see Turnbull v MTA N.Y. City Tr, 28 AD3d 647 [2006] [decided herewith]), the instant appeal has been rendered academic. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Navigation Law § 181 to recover damages resulting from the discharge of petroleum, the plaintiffs James M. Turnbull, Jocelyn Mondesir, Lucille J. Caputo, Cesar Ramos, Linda Biancorosso, Nicholas Biancorosso, Evelyn Israel, Charles S. Hughes, Mary E. Hughes, Loretta Stucchio, Eileen M. Ball, Philip M. Scotto, Geraldine L. Scotto, Anna Rita Oppedisano, Vincenzo Oppedisano, Maryse Fecu, Cathryn Thom, Veronica M. Muscante, Charles R. Muscante, Steven Gregos, Joanne Gregos, Anthony Deprisco, Joseph A. Hunt, Junior A. Edwards, Bernice Dalton, Milton McCormack, and Jennifer Rodriguez appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated July 10, 2003, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from was superseded by an order of the same court dated July 27, 2004, made upon renewal. In light of our determination of the appeal from that order (see Turnbull v MTA N.Y. City Tr, 28 AD3d 647 [2006] [decided herewith]), the instant appeal has been rendered academic. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 647, 812 N.Y.S.2d 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turnbull-v-mta-new-york-city-transit-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack