Roger E. Saulter v Iroquois Central School District
Annotate this Case
Saulter v Iroquois Cent. School Dist.
2003 NY Slip Op 20162 [2 AD3d 1492]
Decided on December 31, 2003
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on December 31, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND GORSKI, JJ.
1545 CA 03-01393
[*1]ROGER E. SAULTER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
IROQUOIS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Lane, J.), entered October 10, 2002, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (PAUL D. MC CORMICK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
NANCY E. HOFFMAN, ALBANY (TIMOTHY CONNICK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Entered: December 31, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Decided on December 31, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND GORSKI, JJ.
1545 CA 03-01393
[*1]ROGER E. SAULTER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
IROQUOIS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Lane, J.), entered October 10, 2002, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (PAUL D. MC CORMICK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
NANCY E. HOFFMAN, ALBANY (TIMOTHY CONNICK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Entered: December 31, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
