Canovic v. Palermo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Canovic v. Palermo

23 A.D.3d 423, 803 N.Y.S.2d 921

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 423 (Canovic v. Palermo) 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

Canovic v. Palermo, 23 A.D.3d 423, 803 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated March 31, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability, the defendants raised the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Hussain v Manhattan Cable T.V., 308 AD2d 433 [2003]; Rozengauz v Lok Wing Ha, 280 AD2d 534 [2001]; Green v Hong Lee Trading, 263 AD2d 445 [1999]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; cf. Irmiyayeva v Thompson, 296 AD2d 439 [2002]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated March 31, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability, the defendants raised the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Hussain v Manhattan Cable T.V., 308 AD2d 433 [2003]; Rozengauz v Lok Wing Ha, 280 AD2d 534 [2001]; Green v Hong Lee Trading, 263 AD2d 445 [1999]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; cf. Irmiyayeva v Thompson, 296 AD2d 439 [2002]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 423, 803 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canovic-v-palermo-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack