Collett v. TWC Ambulette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collett v. TWC Ambulette

261 A.D.2d 499, 687 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5445

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 17, 1999·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Daniel Walcott appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated June 1, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the defendants-respondents.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. The appellant testified that his vehicle was moving when it was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by the defendant Arthur Brand. However, Brand testified that the appellant’s vehicle had stopped short. The conflicting testimony concerning the cause of the collision raises issues of fact concerning the reasonableness of the appellant’s conduct and Brand’s ability to avoid the collision (see, Galitsis-Orengo v MCL Imports, 251 AD2d 285). S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and H. Miller, 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 defendant Daniel Walcott appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated June 1, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the defendants-respondents.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. The appellant testified that his vehicle was moving when it was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by the defendant Arthur Brand. However, Brand testified that the appellant’s vehicle had stopped short. The conflicting testimony concerning the cause of the collision raises issues of fact concerning the reasonableness of the appellant’s conduct and Brand’s ability to avoid the collision (see, Galitsis-Orengo v MCL Imports, 251 AD2d 285). S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Collett v. TWC Ambulette, 261 A.D.2d 499, 687 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

261 A.D.2d 499 (Collett v. TWC Ambulette) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related