Almodovar v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Almodovar v. City of New York

267 A.D.2d 10, 698 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12391

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 10 (Almodovar v. City of New York) 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

Almodovar v. City of New York, 267 A.D.2d 10, 698 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered March 26, 1998, which, upon the grant of the motion of plaintiffs and the cross motion of defendants Robert Almodovar and Griselle Maldonado for renewal, denied defendant Joseph Cambria’s previously granted motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Renewal of the motion for summary judgment was properly granted based on the renewal movants’ submission of additional evidence not before the court on the original motion (see, Framapac Delicatessen v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 249 AD2d 36). As to the merits of the summary judgment motion, we agree with the motion court that the affidavit of defendant Robert Almodovar, freshly before the court on renewal, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff Edwin Almodovar’s injuries were caused by the vehicle driven by defendant Cambria. To the extent that defendant Robert Almodovar’s prior statement to the police is inconsistent with his recent affidavit, such inconsistency suffices only to raise questions as to his credibility which are not appropriately resolved on a motion for summary judgment. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered March 26, 1998, which, upon the grant of the motion of plaintiffs and the cross motion of defendants Robert Almodovar and Griselle Maldonado for renewal, denied defendant Joseph Cambria’s previously granted motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Renewal of the motion for summary judgment was properly granted based on the renewal movants’ submission of additional evidence not before the court on the original motion (see, Framapac Delicatessen v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 249 AD2d 36). As to the merits of the summary judgment motion, we agree with the motion court that the affidavit of defendant Robert Almodovar, freshly before the court on renewal, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff Edwin Almodovar’s injuries were caused by the vehicle driven by defendant Cambria. To the extent that defendant Robert Almodovar’s prior statement to the police is inconsistent with his recent affidavit, such inconsistency suffices only to raise questions as to his credibility which are not appropriately resolved on a motion for summary judgment. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 10, 698 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almodovar-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack