Bauza v. Stubbs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bauza v. Stubbs

5 A.D.3d 208, 772 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2577

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 208 (Bauza v. Stubbs) 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

Bauza v. Stubbs, 5 A.D.3d 208, 772 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered February 3, 2003, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against the Stubbs defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as plaintiffs, in support of their motion, presented evidence showing that their vehicle, while stopped, was hit from behind by defendants’ vehicle, and appellants, in responding to the motion, submitted only the affirmation of counsel, who had no first-hand knowledge of the facts, the motion was properly granted (see Mitchell v Gonzalez, 269 AD2d 250, 251 [2000]; and see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered February 3, 2003, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against the Stubbs defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as plaintiffs, in support of their motion, presented evidence showing that their vehicle, while stopped, was hit from behind by defendants’ vehicle, and appellants, in responding to the motion, submitted only the affirmation of counsel, who had no first-hand knowledge of the facts, the motion was properly granted (see Mitchell v Gonzalez, 269 AD2d 250, 251 [2000]; and see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 208, 772 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauza-v-stubbs-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack