Babcock v. Roche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Babcock v. Roche

262 A.D.2d 512, 691 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7046

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

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 512 (Babcock v. Roche) 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

Babcock v. Roche, 262 A.D.2d 512, 691 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), dated June 30, 1998, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied without prejudice to renewal upon completion of discovery.

Upon the record presented, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. There was no evidence presented as to whether the plaintiff’s actions in response to the emergency situation created when the defendants’ vehicle crossed a double [513]*513yellow line were reasonable, or whether any conduct by the plaintiff contributed to the cause of the automobile accident. These facts are exclusively within the knowledge of the plaintiff and, therefore, summary judgment should have been denied, without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Hentschel v Campbell Carpet Servs., 256 AD2d 500). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), dated June 30, 1998, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied without prejudice to renewal upon completion of discovery.

Upon the record presented, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. There was no evidence presented as to whether the plaintiff’s actions in response to the emergency situation created when the defendants’ vehicle crossed a double [513]*513yellow line were reasonable, or whether any conduct by the plaintiff contributed to the cause of the automobile accident. These facts are exclusively within the knowledge of the plaintiff and, therefore, summary judgment should have been denied, without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Hentschel v Campbell Carpet Servs., 256 AD2d 500). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 512, 691 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babcock-v-roche-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack