BRUBAKER, JASON A. v. HOUSEKNECHT, MARIANNE M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BRUBAKER, JASON A. v. HOUSEKNECHT, MARIANNE M.

83 A.D.3d 1539, 921 N.Y.S.2d 607

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

DecidedApril 29, 2011

DocketCA 10-02378

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 1539 (BRUBAKER, JASON A. v. HOUSEKNECHT, MARIANNE M.) 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

BRUBAKER, JASON A. v. HOUSEKNECHT, MARIANNE M., 83 A.D.3d 1539, 921 N.Y.S.2d 607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered June 21, 2010 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the issue of comparative negligence.

*1540 It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when the vehicle he was driving was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment determining that defendant was negligent and that plaintiff was free from comparative negligence. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Supreme Court properly granted the motion only with respect to the issue of defendant’s negligence. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as we must . . . , we conclude that there are issues of fact that preclude summary judgment” with respect to the issue of plaintiff’s comparative negligence, i.e., whether plaintiffs own conduct or the alleged failure of his brake lights to function contributed to the accident (Russo v YMCA of Greater Buffalo, 12 AD3d 1089, 1089 [2004], lv dismissed 5 NY3d 746 [2005]; see Chilberg v Chilberg, 13 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2004]; see generally Ramadan v Maritato, 50 AD3d 1620 [2008]). Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Sconiers and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered June 21, 2010 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the issue of comparative negligence.

*1540 It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when the vehicle he was driving was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment determining that defendant was negligent and that plaintiff was free from comparative negligence. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Supreme Court properly granted the motion only with respect to the issue of defendant’s negligence. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as we must . . . , we conclude that there are issues of fact that preclude summary judgment” with respect to the issue of plaintiff’s comparative negligence, i.e., whether plaintiffs own conduct or the alleged failure of his brake lights to function contributed to the accident (Russo v YMCA of Greater Buffalo, 12 AD3d 1089, 1089 [2004], lv dismissed 5 NY3d 746 [2005]; see Chilberg v Chilberg, 13 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2004]; see generally Ramadan v Maritato, 50 AD3d 1620 [2008]). Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Sconiers and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 1539, 921 N.Y.S.2d 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brubaker-jason-a-v-houseknecht-marianne-m-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack