Case Name: Stuart Glucksman, Plaintiff, v. Halsey Drug Co., Inc., et al., Defendants; Halsey Drug Co., Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Zenith Laboratories, Inc., Third-Party Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1989-05-05
Citations: 145 Misc. 2d 1064
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stuart Glucksman, Plaintiff, v Halsey Drug Co., Inc., et al., Defendants. Halsey Drug Co., Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Zenith Laboratories, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 145
Pages: 1064–1064

Head Matter:
Stuart Glucksman, Plaintiff, v Halsey Drug Co., Inc., et al., Defendants. Halsey Drug Co., Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Zenith Laboratories, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.
Supreme Court, New York County,
May 5, 1989
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Gair Gair & Conason (Candice Singer Ram of counsel), for plaintiff. James M. Leonard and Michael Garabedian for Halsey Drug Co., Inc., defendant and third-party plaintiff. Ayers & Thompson (Kenneth Grossman of counsel), for third-party defendant.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
David B. Saxe, J.
Motion for reargument is granted on the ground that the court overlooked a controlling principle of law. Upon reconsideration of the facts submitted in light of the principle that "On a motion for summary judgment self-serving statements of an interested party which refer to matters exclusively within that party's knowledge create an issue of credibility which should not be decided by the court but should be left for the trier of facts" (Sacher v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center, 142 AD2d 567, 568 [2d Dept 1988]), it is clear that it was error to grant summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against Halsey Drug Co. Accordingly, the decision of October 28, 1988, and the order entered thereon are vacated, and substituted therefor is a decision denying summary judgment.