Ash v. McNamara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ash v. McNamara

288 A.D.2d 956, 732 N.Y.S.2d 791, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10737

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 956 (Ash v. McNamara) 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

Ash v. McNamara, 288 A.D.2d 956, 732 N.Y.S.2d 791, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of his motion, defendant [957]*957submitted his deposition and affidavits of two witnesses establishing that defendant was driving in a reasonable and prudent manner when plaintiffs infant daughter ran into the road in front of defendant’s vehicle. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had sufficient time to react to her daughter’s suddenly running into the road (see, Bachman v Cook, 281 AD2d 938, 939; Brown v City of New York, 237 AD2d 398, 398-399). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court; Oswego County, Nicholson, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of his motion, defendant [957]*957submitted his deposition and affidavits of two witnesses establishing that defendant was driving in a reasonable and prudent manner when plaintiffs infant daughter ran into the road in front of defendant’s vehicle. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had sufficient time to react to her daughter’s suddenly running into the road (see, Bachman v Cook, 281 AD2d 938, 939; Brown v City of New York, 237 AD2d 398, 398-399). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court; Oswego County, Nicholson, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 956, 732 N.Y.S.2d 791, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ash-v-mcnamara-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack