Brown v. Nocella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Nocella

2017 NY Slip Op 2755, 149 A.D.3d 470, 49 N.Y.S.3d 888

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

DecidedApril 11, 2017

Docket3666 303527/15

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2755 (Brown v. Nocella) 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

Brown v. Nocella, 2017 NY Slip Op 2755, 149 A.D.3d 470, 49 N.Y.S.3d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered February 24, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff’s vehicle was struck from behind by defendants’ vehicle (see e.g. Santana v Tic-Tak Limo Corp., 106 AD3d 572, 573-574 [1st Dept 2013]). In opposition, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident. Defendants’ response to the motion consisted of an affirmation of their attorney, who had no personal knowledge, and who argued only that the motion was premature, since discovery was outstand *471 ing (see McCarthy v Art Van Lines USA Inc., 144 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2016]; Gyabaah v Rivlab Transp. Corp., 129 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered February 24, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff’s vehicle was struck from behind by defendants’ vehicle (see e.g. Santana v Tic-Tak Limo Corp., 106 AD3d 572, 573-574 [1st Dept 2013]). In opposition, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident. Defendants’ response to the motion consisted of an affirmation of their attorney, who had no personal knowledge, and who argued only that the motion was premature, since discovery was outstand *471 ing (see McCarthy v Art Van Lines USA Inc., 144 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2016]; Gyabaah v Rivlab Transp. Corp., 129 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2755, 149 A.D.3d 470, 49 N.Y.S.3d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-nocella-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack