Baker v. Chandler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baker v. Chandler

265 A.D.2d 904, 696 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10025

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 904 (Baker v. Chandler) 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

Baker v. Chandler, 265 A.D.2d 904, 696 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint and third-party complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and in dismissing, sua sponte, the third-party complaint. There is a triable issue of fact whether Wesley L. Chandler (defendant), “in the exercise of reasonable care, should have taken some evasive action to avoid the collision with [decedent’s] motorcycle” (Acker v Anderson, 193 AD2d 1121). The issue whether defendant was negligent in the operation of his vehicle between the time he first observed decedent’s motorcycle and the collision is one of fact for the jury to resolve (see, Palmer v Rouse, 232 AD2d 909, 911). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint and third-party complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and in dismissing, sua sponte, the third-party complaint. There is a triable issue of fact whether Wesley L. Chandler (defendant), “in the exercise of reasonable care, should have taken some evasive action to avoid the collision with [decedent’s] motorcycle” (Acker v Anderson, 193 AD2d 1121). The issue whether defendant was negligent in the operation of his vehicle between the time he first observed decedent’s motorcycle and the collision is one of fact for the jury to resolve (see, Palmer v Rouse, 232 AD2d 909, 911). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 904, 696 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-chandler-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack