Caldara v. Ferolano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caldara v. Ferolano

283 A.D.2d 453, 724 N.Y.S.2d 628, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4966

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

DecidedMay 14, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 453 (Caldara v. Ferolano) 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

Caldara v. Ferolano, 283 A.D.2d 453, 724 N.Y.S.2d 628, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Jean Caldara and Joseph Vasile appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated March 17, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against them, and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against the appellants is denied, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all the cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant Joseph Ferolano raised a triable issue of fact as to the manner in which the defendant Jean Caldara operated her vehicle (see, Cenovski v Lee, 266 AD2d 424; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157; Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, 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, the defendants Jean Caldara and Joseph Vasile appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated March 17, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against them, and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability insofar as asserted against the appellants is denied, the cross motion is granted, the complaint and all the cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The appellants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant Joseph Ferolano raised a triable issue of fact as to the manner in which the defendant Jean Caldara operated her vehicle (see, Cenovski v Lee, 266 AD2d 424; Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157; Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 453, 724 N.Y.S.2d 628, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldara-v-ferolano-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack