From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. County of Warren

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 7, 1992
79 N.Y.2d 1027 (N.Y. 1992)

Summary

granting summary judgment in favor of defendant because allegations did not raise an issue of fact whether defendant performed its duties with reckless indifference to plaintiff's rights

Summary of this case from In re Fontainebleau Las Vegas Contract Litig.

Opinion

Submitted March 16, 1992

Decided May 7, 1992


Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from so much of the Appellate Division order as affirmed the order of Supreme Court denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew and/or reargue, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.


Summaries of

King v. County of Warren

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 7, 1992
79 N.Y.2d 1027 (N.Y. 1992)

granting summary judgment in favor of defendant because allegations did not raise an issue of fact whether defendant performed its duties with reckless indifference to plaintiff's rights

Summary of this case from In re Fontainebleau Las Vegas Contract Litig.

In David Gutter Furs, a case involving defendant's design, installation, and monitoring of a burglar alarm system, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the appellate court's denial of summary judgment on the grounds there was no issue of fact whether defendant performed its duties with reckless indifference to plaintiff's rights.

Summary of this case from In re Fontainebleau Las Vegas Contract Litig.
Case details for

King v. County of Warren

Case Details

Full title:GARRY S. KING et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF WARREN, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 7, 1992

Citations

79 N.Y.2d 1027 (N.Y. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 430
594 N.E.2d 924

Citing Cases

Abacus Federal Savings Bank v. ADT Security Services, Inc.

We applied this standard in David Gutter Furs v. Jewelers Protection Servs., 79 N.Y.2d 1027, 584 N.Y.S.2d…

Net2Globe International, Inc. v. Time Warner Telecom

But it did. . . ."); Ninacci Diamond Jewelry Co. v. R.A.V. Investigative servs., Inc., No. 95 Civ. 9302, 1998…