Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

World Trade Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Lido Knitting Mills, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 20, 1990Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bracken, J. P. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

A majority of this court votes to grant summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint against the defendant Honeywell Inc. (hereinafter Honeywell) on two grounds: first, that as a matter of law, any negligence on the part of Honeywell constituted "nonfeasance” rather than "misfeasance”, and second, that as a matter of law, any negligence on the part of Honeywell was "ordinary” rather than "gross”. *111The distinction between "gross” negligence and "ordinary” negligence, as well as the distinction between "misfeasance” and…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Garrett v. Holiday Inns, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Schuster v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1958
  4. Ossining Union Free School District v. AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Riss v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1968

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API