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

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

DecidedMay 17, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 499 (Collett v. TWC Ambulette) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 499, 687 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collett-v-twc-ambulette-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack