Case Name: Nubar Sukljian, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Moses Sukljian, an Infant, Plaintiff, v. Charles Ross & Son Company, Inc., Defendant, and K. M. Equipment Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. Alex Zeeve & Company, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, and Commercial Equipment and Machinery Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, and General Electric Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. (And Fourth- and Fifth-Party Actions.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1986-05-06
Citations: 120 A.D.2d 805
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nubar Sukljian, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Moses Sukljian, an Infant, Plaintiff, v Charles Ross & Son Company, Inc., Defendant, and K. M. Equipment Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. Alex Zeeve & Company, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, and Commercial Equipment and Machinery Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, and General Electric Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. (And Fourth- and Fifth-Party Actions.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 805–805

Head Matter:
(May 6, 1986)
Nubar Sukljian, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Moses Sukljian, an Infant, Plaintiff, v Charles Ross & Son Company, Inc., Defendant, and K. M. Equipment Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. Alex Zeeve & Company, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, and Commercial Equipment and Machinery Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, and General Electric Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. (And Fourth- and Fifth-Party Actions.)

Opinion:
— Motions for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, without costs. No issue of fact was considered by this court. Pursuant to CPLR 5713, this court certifies that the following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen, which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals: "Did this court err, as a matter of law, in affirming Special Term's order?" Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.