Arbreu v. Kitlitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arbreu v. Kitlitz

90 A.D.2d 815, 456 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19052

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 815 (Arbreu v. Kitlitz) 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

Arbreu v. Kitlitz, 90 A.D.2d 815, 456 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant James Eanuzel appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.), dated March 16,1982, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. A question of fact exists on this record as to (1) whether or not defendant Eanuzel gave implied permission to defendant Kitlitz to road test his car, after repairs were completed and, assuming that implied permission was given, (2) whether or not Kitlitz was actually road testing the car, or was merely engaged in personal use of the car, at the time of the accident. Accordingly, Eanuzel’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant James Eanuzel appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.), dated March 16,1982, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. A question of fact exists on this record as to (1) whether or not defendant Eanuzel gave implied permission to defendant Kitlitz to road test his car, after repairs were completed and, assuming that implied permission was given, (2) whether or not Kitlitz was actually road testing the car, or was merely engaged in personal use of the car, at the time of the accident. Accordingly, Eanuzel’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 815, 456 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arbreu-v-kitlitz-nyappdiv-1982.