Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coakley v. Middle County Central School District

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


May 11, 2010

CHRISTOPHER COAKLEY, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
MIDDLE COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT, TIMOTHY JONES, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Timothy Jones, an infant by his mother and natural guardian Joanne Jones, and Joanne Jones, individually, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated April 13, 2009, as purportedly denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the defendant Timothy Jones, an infant, by his mother and natural guardian Joanne Jones.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, ANITA R. FLORIO, RUTH C. BALKIN, JJ.

(Index No. 23882/04)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants Timothy Jones, an infant by his mother and natural guardian Joanne Jones, and Joanne Jones, individually, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims asserted against them. The Supreme Court decided only that branch of the motion which related to Joanne Jones individually. The defendants' contentions concerning that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against Timothy Jones are not properly before us, as that branch of the motion was not addressed by the Supreme Court. Thus, it remains pending and undecided (see Magriples v Tekelch, 53 AD3d 532; Wheels Am. N.Y., Ltd v Montalvo, 50 AD3d 1130; Hawkins-Bond v Konefsky, 48 AD3d 417; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536).

RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, FLORIO and BALKIN, JJ., concur.

20100511

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.