General
Natalia Makarova et al., Respondents, v. Roger L. Stevens et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant
237 A.D.2d 224655 N.Y.S.2d 935·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1997·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
Natalia Makarova et al., Respondents, v Roger L. Stevens et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
[655 NYS2d 935]
[MAJORITY]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered October 16, 1996, which deemed defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment as one to renew their prior motion for summary judgment, and, so considered, denied the motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants’ second, eve-of-trial motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The papers submitted demonstrate the existence of questions of fact as to the degree of control exercised by either or both defendants. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.