Agati v. Wandel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Agati v. Wandel

49 A.D.3d 572, 854 N.Y.2d 445

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 572 (Agati v. Wandel) 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

Agati v. Wandel, 49 A.D.3d 572, 854 N.Y.2d 445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff in action No. 1 made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence which demonstrated that the sole proximate cause of the accident in question was the failure of the defendant in that action to yield the right-of-way as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 (see e.g. Spivak v Erickson, 40 AD3d 962 [2007]; Aristizabal v Aristizabal, 37 AD3d 503 [2007]). In opposition, that defendant failed to come forward with any evidence suf[573]*573ficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see e.g. Almonte v Tobias, 36 AD3d 636 [2007]; Berner v Koegel, 31 AD3d 591 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability in action No. 1. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff in action No. 1 made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence which demonstrated that the sole proximate cause of the accident in question was the failure of the defendant in that action to yield the right-of-way as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 (see e.g. Spivak v Erickson, 40 AD3d 962 [2007]; Aristizabal v Aristizabal, 37 AD3d 503 [2007]). In opposition, that defendant failed to come forward with any evidence suf[573]*573ficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see e.g. Almonte v Tobias, 36 AD3d 636 [2007]; Berner v Koegel, 31 AD3d 591 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability in action No. 1. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 572, 854 N.Y.2d 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agati-v-wandel-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack