Abramov v. Visan Fuel Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abramov v. Visan Fuel Oil Co.

27 A.D.3d 404, 809 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 404 (Abramov v. Visan Fuel Oil Co.) 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

Abramov v. Visan Fuel Oil Co., 27 A.D.3d 404, 809 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated August 5, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 [a]; Neryaev v Solon, 6 AD3d 510 [2004]). Further, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the motion should have been denied pending discovery (see CPLR 3212 [f|; Neryaev v Solon, supra). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Spolzino, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated August 5, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 [a]; Neryaev v Solon, 6 AD3d 510 [2004]). Further, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the motion should have been denied pending discovery (see CPLR 3212 [f|; Neryaev v Solon, supra). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 404, 809 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abramov-v-visan-fuel-oil-co-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack