Sarratori v. Park, 97 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Sarratori v. Park, 97 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the issue of whether a use constitutes a private nuisance ordinarily turns on questions of fact at p. 958 ⚠ not in text
10 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pilatich v. Town of New Baltimore (nyappdiv, 2015-11-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pilatich v. Town of New Baltimore
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“The issue of whether a use constitutes a private nuisance ordinarily turns on questions of fact” and, in light of the above evidence, which reveals material questions of fact, we find that defendants have not made out a prima facie case for summary judgment (Murray v Young, 97 AD2d 958, 958 [1983]; see Futerfas v Shultis, 209 AD2d 761, 763 [1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pilatich v. Town of New Baltimore
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“The issue of whether a use constitutes a private nuisance ordinarily turns on questions of fact” and, in light of the above evidence, which reveals material questions of fact, we find that defendants have not made out a prima facie case for summary judgment (Murray v Young, 97 AD2d 958, 958 [1983]; see Futerfas v Shultis, 209 AD2d 761, 763 [1994]).
cited Cited "see" Allison v. Smith
Colo. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Murray v. Young, 97 A.D.2d 958 , 468 N.Y.S.2d 759 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joanne Sarratori
v.
Pyung D. Park
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 4, 1983.
97 A.D.2d 958
1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20773
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for further examination before trial of defendant, we treat the motion as one to reopen discovery proceedings (see Milone v General Motors Corp., 93 AD2d 999) and we find that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the order. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Fritsch, J. — medical malpractice.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.