You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Hernandez v. R & M Amusement, Inc.

Citations: 209 A.D.2d 472; 619 N.Y.S.2d 635; 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11239

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 13, 1994; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case regarding personal injury damages, Amusement Realty Corp. (defendant and third-party plaintiff) appealed a Supreme Court order from March 31, 1993, which denied two branches of its motion: (1) for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against it, and (2) for summary judgment on its third-party complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, citing the presence of material questions of fact that prevent the granting of summary judgment to Amusement Realty Corp. The court referenced precedent cases to support its decision. Justices Thompson, Balletta, Rosenblatt, and Florio concurred with the judgment.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appeal of Denial for Summary Judgment

Application: Amusement Realty Corp. sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against it and on its third-party complaint, both of which were denied due to unresolved factual issues.

Reasoning: Amusement Realty Corp. (defendant and third-party plaintiff) appealed a Supreme Court order from March 31, 1993, which denied two branches of its motion: (1) for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against it, and (2) for summary judgment on its third-party complaint.

Role of Appellate Court

Application: The appellate court's role was to review the denial of the summary judgment motions and it affirmed the lower court's decision, aligning with the justices' concurrence on the presence of factual disputes.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the order, citing the presence of material questions of fact that prevent the granting of summary judgment to Amusement Realty Corp. Justices Thompson, Balletta, Rosenblatt, and Florio concurred with the judgment.

Summary Judgment Standards

Application: The court reiterated that summary judgment is inappropriate where there are material questions of fact that must be resolved.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the order, citing the presence of material questions of fact that prevent the granting of summary judgment to Amusement Realty Corp.