CENECA GREENIDGE, plf-res, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. ap, QUINCY CAMPBLE, def-res

CENECA GREENIDGE, plf-res, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. ap, QUINCY CAMPBLE, def-res — (INDEX NO. 25158/11)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants United Parcel Service, Inc., and James Earl appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated July 30, 2015, as granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against them, denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102(d) as a result of the subject accident, and granted the cross motion of the defendant Quincy Campble for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him on the ground of no liability, and (2) an amended interlocutory judgment of the same court dated October 20, 2015, which, upon the order, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them on the issue of liability.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

CENECA GREENIDGE, plf-res, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. ap, QUINCY CAMPBLE, def-res — (INDEX NO. 25158/11)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants United Parcel Service, Inc., and James Earl appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated July 30, 2015, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against them, denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102(d) as a result of the subject accident, and granted the cross motion of the defendant Quincy Campble for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him on the ground of no liability, and (2) an amended interlocutory judgment of the same court dated October 20, 2015, which, upon the order, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Quincy Campble which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the defendants United Parcel Service, Inc., and James Earl are not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see CPLR 5511; Mixon v. TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144, 156); and it is further,

CENECA GREENIDGE, plf-res, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. ap, QUINCY CAMPBLE, def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal