Churyk v. Haner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Churyk v. Haner

276 A.D.2d 736, 715 N.Y.S.2d 157, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10913

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 736 (Churyk v. Haner) 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

Churyk v. Haner, 276 A.D.2d 736, 715 N.Y.S.2d 157, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered December 15, 1999, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Shirley Haner and Chase Manhattan Auto which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

[737]*737Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Where the facts “clearly point to the negligence of one party without any fault or culpable conduct by the other party”, summary judgment is appropriate (Morowitz v Naughton, 150 AD2d 536, 537). Here, in opposition to the respondents’ prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue of fact that the actions of the codefendant William J. Carlin, Jr.’s, decedent, William Kezema, were not the sole proximate cause of the accident or that the actions of the defendant Shirley Haner were a proximate cause of the accident (see, Chamberlin v Suffolk County Labor Dept., 221 AD2d 580).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the doctrine of Noseworthy v City of New York (298 NY 76) is not applicable to the facts of this case. Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered December 15, 1999, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Shirley Haner and Chase Manhattan Auto which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

[737]*737Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Where the facts “clearly point to the negligence of one party without any fault or culpable conduct by the other party”, summary judgment is appropriate (Morowitz v Naughton, 150 AD2d 536, 537). Here, in opposition to the respondents’ prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue of fact that the actions of the codefendant William J. Carlin, Jr.’s, decedent, William Kezema, were not the sole proximate cause of the accident or that the actions of the defendant Shirley Haner were a proximate cause of the accident (see, Chamberlin v Suffolk County Labor Dept., 221 AD2d 580).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the doctrine of Noseworthy v City of New York (298 NY 76) is not applicable to the facts of this case. Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 736, 715 N.Y.S.2d 157, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/churyk-v-haner-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack