Contracts · MBE-tested
Shirley Countreyman, Plaintiff, v. Nancy Miller et al., Appellants, and Charles Bruyn, Respondent
96 A.D.2d 568·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1983·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Shirley Countreyman, Plaintiff, v Nancy Miller et al., Appellants, and Charles Bruyn, Respondent.
[MAJORITY]
— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants Nancy and Louis Miller appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Gurahian, J.), dated July 6,1982, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim of defendant Bruyn. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Ambiguities in the contract present triable issues of fact as to the intent of the parties. Therefore, summary judgment was properly denied (see Kalmon Dolgin Co. v Walnut Lanes, 27 AD2d 843). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.