Borges v. Zukowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Borges v. Zukowski

22 A.D.3d 439, 801 N.Y.S.2d 544

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 439 (Borges v. Zukowski) 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

Borges v. Zukowski, 22 A.D.3d 439, 801 N.Y.S.2d 544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated September 27, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants presented a prima facie case that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the plaintiff Isaac Borges in proceeding through an intersection against a red traffic light without stopping (see Iqbal v Petrov, 9 AD3d 416 [2004]; Lestingi v Holland, 297 AD2d 627 [2002]; see also Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 [d]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Iqbal v Petrov, supra; Lestingi v Holland, supra). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Fisher, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated September 27, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants presented a prima facie case that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the plaintiff Isaac Borges in proceeding through an intersection against a red traffic light without stopping (see Iqbal v Petrov, 9 AD3d 416 [2004]; Lestingi v Holland, 297 AD2d 627 [2002]; see also Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 [d]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Iqbal v Petrov, supra; Lestingi v Holland, supra). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 439, 801 N.Y.S.2d 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borges-v-zukowski-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack