General

Halima Adam et al., Respondents, v. Arthur Solomon et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant

289 A.D.2d 187733 N.Y.S.2d 915·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2001·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

Second Department, December, 2001 (December 3, 2001) Halima Adam et al., Respondents, v Arthur Solomon et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. [733 NYS2d 915] [MAJORITY] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Arthur Solomon, Robert Solomon, and Evelyn Haies appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated January 9, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Friedmann, J. P., Smith, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.