From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sossin v. Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2004
11 A.D.3d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

CA 03-01445.

October 1, 2004.

Before: Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.


Motions for reargument granted and, upon reargument, the memorandum and order entered July 9, 2004 is amended by providing that the caption shall read as follows: "Filipp Sossin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. Lewis, et al., Defendants, Eric J. Arisnosky, Aim Leasing Co., Dennis L. James, James M. Smith, Ashland Chemical Co., Dale W. Preston, Patrick J. Schlicht, Snorac, Inc., Michael G. McCarthy, Robert P. Coffey, and Kristen G. Coffey, Defendants-Respondents"; by providing in the ordering paragraph that the order is modified by denying the motion of defendants Robert P. Coffey and Kristen G. Coffey and the cross motions of defendants Dale W. Preston, Dennis L. James, James M. Smith, Ashland Chemical Co. and Michael G. McCarthy and reinstating the complaint against them; and by deleting the first sentence of the third paragraph of the memorandum and substituting in its place the following sentence: "With respect to defendants Robert P. Coffey, Kristen G. Coffey, Dale W. Preston, Dennis L. James, James M. Smith, Ashland Chemical Co. and Michael G. McCarthy (collectively, moving defendants), we conclude that there are issues of fact concerning the applicability of the emergency doctrine and the liability of those defendants, and thus we modify the order by denying their respective motion and cross motions and reinstating the complaint against them."


Summaries of

Sossin v. Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2004
11 A.D.3d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Sossin v. Lewis

Case Details

Full title:FILIPP SOSSIN, Appellant, v. CHARLES L. LEWIS et al., Respondents, et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 1, 2004

Citations

11 A.D.3d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
782 N.Y.S.2d 390

Citing Cases

Zynda v. Waid

Here, we conclude that summary judgment on the basis of the emergency doctrine is not appropriate because…

Watson v. Peschel

lude that plaintiff's own submissions on his motion raise triable issues of fact whether defendant was faced…