From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adam v. Solomon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 3, 2001
289 A.D.2d 187 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2001-01639

Argued November 8, 2001.

December 3, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Arthur Solomon, Robert Solomon, and Evelyn Haies appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated January 9, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Molod Spitz DeSantis Stark, P.C., New York, N Y (Paul N. Schlemmer and Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for appellants.

Charles Juntikka, New York, N.Y. (Thomas Keane of counsel), for respondents.

Before: WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).

FRIEDMANN, J.P., SMITH, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Adam v. Solomon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 3, 2001
289 A.D.2d 187 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Adam v. Solomon

Case Details

Full title:HALIMA ADAM, ET AL., respondents, v. ARTHUR SOLOMON, ET AL., appellants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 3, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 187 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 915