Brabender v. Brosseau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brabender v. Brosseau

228 A.D.2d 536, 644 N.Y.2d 552, 644 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7154

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

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 536 (Brabender v. Brosseau) 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

Brabender v. Brosseau, 228 A.D.2d 536, 644 N.Y.2d 552, 644 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In this personal injury action arising from an automobile accident, the appellants Paul H. Brosseau and his employer, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, separately moved for summary judgment, claiming that Brosseau was presented with an emergency situation absolving him of any negligence as a matter of law (see, e.g., Greifer v Schneider, 215 AD2d 354; Glick v City of New York, 191 AD2d 677). We agree, however, with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the appellants’ motions was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Brosseau’s conduct (see, Mollicone v Miller, 84 NY2d 835, revg 202 AD2d 886, on dissent of Yesawich Jr., J.).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit or not properly before this Court. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In this personal injury action arising from an automobile accident, the appellants Paul H. Brosseau and his employer, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, separately moved for summary judgment, claiming that Brosseau was presented with an emergency situation absolving him of any negligence as a matter of law (see, e.g., Greifer v Schneider, 215 AD2d 354; Glick v City of New York, 191 AD2d 677). We agree, however, with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the appellants’ motions was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding Brosseau’s conduct (see, Mollicone v Miller, 84 NY2d 835, revg 202 AD2d 886, on dissent of Yesawich Jr., J.).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit or not properly before this Court. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 536, 644 N.Y.2d 552, 644 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brabender-v-brosseau-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack