Alberti v. DiBella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alberti v. DiBella

248 A.D.2d 338, 669 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2053

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 338 (Alberti v. DiBella) 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

Alberti v. DiBella, 248 A.D.2d 338, 669 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), entered February 25, 1997, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Catherine DiBella which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Catherine DiBella which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. No triable issues of fact exist as to whether any negligence on her part was the proximate cause of the collision in which the plaintiff was allegedly injured (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), entered February 25, 1997, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Catherine DiBella which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Catherine DiBella which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. No triable issues of fact exist as to whether any negligence on her part was the proximate cause of the collision in which the plaintiff was allegedly injured (see, CPLR 3212 [b]).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 338, 669 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alberti-v-dibella-nyappdiv-1998.