Wiesner v. Vic Tanny Gyms, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wiesner v. Vic Tanny Gyms, Inc.

18 A.D.2d 816, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5032

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 816 (Wiesner v. Vic Tanny Gyms, Inc.) 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

Wiesner v. Vic Tanny Gyms, Inc., 18 A.D.2d 816, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury allegedly sustained when plaintiff was thrown from a vibrating machine in a gymnasium on the premises of the defendant Vic Tanny Queens, Inc., said defendant and the defendants Vie Tanny Gyms, Inc., and Vic Tanny, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 7, 1962, which denied the motion made by them and one other defendant for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 113). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (see Grande v. Torello, 12 A D 2d 937; Krohn v. Steinlauf, 11 A D 2d 695, 696). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, 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 injury allegedly sustained when plaintiff was thrown from a vibrating machine in a gymnasium on the premises of the defendant Vic Tanny Queens, Inc., said defendant and the defendants Vie Tanny Gyms, Inc., and Vic Tanny, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 7, 1962, which denied the motion made by them and one other defendant for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 113). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (see Grande v. Torello, 12 A D 2d 937; Krohn v. Steinlauf, 11 A D 2d 695, 696). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 816, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiesner-v-vic-tanny-gyms-inc-nyappdiv-1963.