Bifaro v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bifaro v. Smith

242 A.D.2d 892, 665 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10446

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 892 (Bifaro v. Smith) 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

Bifaro v. Smith, 242 A.D.2d 892, 665 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because the “ ‘ “plain command” ’ ” of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c (8) prohibits proof to support plaintiffs cause of action “ ‘predicated, directly or indirectly, upon noncompliance with * * * § 1229-c [(1)]’ ”, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (Baker v Keller, 241 AD2d 947, quoting Hamilton v Purser, 162 AD2d 91, 93). We have considered the remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because the “ ‘ “plain command” ’ ” of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c (8) prohibits proof to support plaintiffs cause of action “ ‘predicated, directly or indirectly, upon noncompliance with * * * § 1229-c [(1)]’ ”, Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (Baker v Keller, 241 AD2d 947, quoting Hamilton v Purser, 162 AD2d 91, 93). We have considered the remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 892, 665 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bifaro-v-smith-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack