Aguila v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aguila v. New York City Transit Authority

2 A.D.3d 761, 769 N.Y.S.2d 733

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

DecidedDecember 29, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 761 (Aguila v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Aguila v. New York City Transit Authority, 2 A.D.3d 761, 769 N.Y.S.2d 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated October 4, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, after they made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff Elipidio Agulia’s testimony at his deposition and at the hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, together with the submitted medical evidence of his injuries, raised a triable issue of fact as to the bus driver’s negligence (see Jenkins v Westchester County, 278 AD2d 370 [2000]; Lebreton v New York City Tr. Auth., 267 AD2d 211 [1999]; see also Urquhart v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d 828 [1995]; cf. Curley-Concepcion v New York City Tr. Auth., 276 AD2d 463 [2000]). Accordingly, the [762]*762defendants’ motion should have been denied. Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated October 4, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, after they made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff Elipidio Agulia’s testimony at his deposition and at the hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, together with the submitted medical evidence of his injuries, raised a triable issue of fact as to the bus driver’s negligence (see Jenkins v Westchester County, 278 AD2d 370 [2000]; Lebreton v New York City Tr. Auth., 267 AD2d 211 [1999]; see also Urquhart v New York City Tr. Auth., 85 NY2d 828 [1995]; cf. Curley-Concepcion v New York City Tr. Auth., 276 AD2d 463 [2000]). Accordingly, the [762]*762defendants’ motion should have been denied. Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 761, 769 N.Y.S.2d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguila-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack