Ahmad v. Babylon Ford, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ahmad v. Babylon Ford, Inc.

276 A.D.2d 513, 716 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10143

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 513 (Ahmad v. Babylon Ford, Inc.) 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

Ahmad v. Babylon Ford, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 513, 716 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated August 5, 1999, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint which was based on the plaintiffs’ alleged spoliation of evidence (see, Gallo v Bay Ridge Lincoln Mercury, 262 AD2d 450; Popfinger v Terminix Intl. Co. Ltd. Partnership, 251 AD2d 564; see also, Prasad v B.K. Chevrolet, 184 AD2d 626). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated August 5, 1999, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint which was based on the plaintiffs’ alleged spoliation of evidence (see, Gallo v Bay Ridge Lincoln Mercury, 262 AD2d 450; Popfinger v Terminix Intl. Co. Ltd. Partnership, 251 AD2d 564; see also, Prasad v B.K. Chevrolet, 184 AD2d 626). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 513, 716 N.Y.S.2d 579, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahmad-v-babylon-ford-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack