Baptiste v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baptiste v. Roberts

249 A.D.2d 256, 671 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3653

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

DecidedApril 6, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 256 (Baptiste v. Roberts) 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

Baptiste v. Roberts, 249 A.D.2d 256, 671 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Hayden G. Roberts appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated February 21, 1997, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Marie C. Ulcena which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims against her.

• Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion by the defendant Marie C. Ulcena which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims against her is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the respondent, because there is a triable issue of fact as to whether her vehicle was involved in the subject accident. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, 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 defendant Hayden G. Roberts appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated February 21, 1997, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Marie C. Ulcena which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims against her.

• Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion by the defendant Marie C. Ulcena which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims against her is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the respondent, because there is a triable issue of fact as to whether her vehicle was involved in the subject accident. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 256, 671 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baptiste-v-roberts-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack