Abdullah v. Husbands

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abdullah v. Husbands

265 A.D.2d 435, 696 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10446

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 435 (Abdullah v. Husbands) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abdullah v. Husbands, 265 A.D.2d 435, 696 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated September 24, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as the issue of whether his car was being used with his permission at the time of the subject collision is one for the trier of fact (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 [436]*436[1]; Leotta v Plessinger, 8 NY2d 449, 461; Jimenez v Regan, 248 AD2d 510; Walls v Zuvic, 113 AD2d 936; Blunt v Zinni, 32 AD2d 882, 883, affd 27 NY2d 521; Lewis v Caldwell, 236 AD2d 896). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated September 24, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as the issue of whether his car was being used with his permission at the time of the subject collision is one for the trier of fact (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 [436]*436[1]; Leotta v Plessinger, 8 NY2d 449, 461; Jimenez v Regan, 248 AD2d 510; Walls v Zuvic, 113 AD2d 936; Blunt v Zinni, 32 AD2d 882, 883, affd 27 NY2d 521; Lewis v Caldwell, 236 AD2d 896). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 435, 696 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdullah-v-husbands-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack