Coogan v. Ed's Bargain Buggy Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coogan v. Ed's Bargain Buggy Corp.

262 A.D.2d 596, 691 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7624

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

DecidedJune 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 596 (Coogan v. Ed's Bargain Buggy Corp.) 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

Coogan v. Ed's Bargain Buggy Corp., 262 A.D.2d 596, 691 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order and interlocutory judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated June 10, 1998, which, upon granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order and interlocutory judgment is reversed, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact and failed to demonstrate entitlement to partial summary judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The plaintiffs’ papers were insufficient to establish causation. S. Miller, J. P., Joy, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order and interlocutory judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated June 10, 1998, which, upon granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order and interlocutory judgment is reversed, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact and failed to demonstrate entitlement to partial summary judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The plaintiffs’ papers were insufficient to establish causation. S. Miller, J. P., Joy, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 596, 691 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coogan-v-eds-bargain-buggy-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack