Caso v. Behme

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caso v. Behme

282 A.D.2d 493, 722 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3569

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 493 (Caso v. Behme) 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

Caso v. Behme, 282 A.D.2d 493, 722 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 7, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the vehicle of the plaintiff’s decedent crossed over into the lane in which the vehicle of the defendant’s decedent was traveling. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361; Foresto v Long Is. Light. Co., 272 AD2d 514). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 7, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the vehicle of the plaintiff’s decedent crossed over into the lane in which the vehicle of the defendant’s decedent was traveling. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361; Foresto v Long Is. Light. Co., 272 AD2d 514). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 493, 722 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caso-v-behme-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack