Amico v. Vallarelli
This text of 69 A.D.3d 887 (Amico v. Vallarelli) 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.
Opinion
The defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, his expert’s report concluding that the defendant was not negligent. In response, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact. Accordingly, [888]*888the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied (see Tapia v Royal Tours Serv., Inc., 67 AD3d 894 [2009]; Lopez v Reyes-Flores, 52 AD3d 785 [2008] ; Gomez v Hilfiger, 45 AD3d 728, 729 [2007]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; cf. Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]).
The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
69 A.D.3d 887, 892 N.Y.2d 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amico-v-vallarelli-nyappdiv-2010.