Legal Opinion

Quinn v. Hoover & Strong, Inc.

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

Decided September 23, 1983PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: On appeal from Special Term’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff concedes that causes of action one through five, including negligence and strict products liability causes of action, are time barred but urges that the sixth cause of action, based on fraud, survives. Plaintiff, suing as executrix of the *1146estate of James Quinn, alleges that defendants used radioactive gold in enlarging a ring for Quinn in 1946 and that in 1977 Quinn discovered that the ring was radioactive and that it had caused a cancerous…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
  2. Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
  3. Angie v. Johns Manville Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Queensbury Union Free School District v. Jim Walter Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  2. Cottonaro v. Southtowns Industries, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  3. Calamel v. Ridge View Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  4. Riley v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API