Amico v. Vallarelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amico v. Vallarelli

69 A.D.3d 887, 892 N.Y.2d 798

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 26, 2010·Published

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

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.

Amico v. Vallarelli, 69 A.D.3d 887, 892 N.Y.2d 798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

69 A.D.3d 887 (Amico v. Vallarelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related