Croce v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Croce v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp.

7 A.D.3d 748, 776 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedMay 24, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 748 (Croce v. Budget Rent-A-Car 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

Croce v. Budget Rent-A-Car Corp., 7 A.D.3d 748, 776 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendant Manuel M. Chauca appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated August 15, 2003, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Manuel M. Chauca failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he was free from negligence and that his actions were not a proximate cause of the accident (see Siegel v Sweeney, 266 AD2d 200, 201 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment. Santucci, J.E, Altman, S. Miller and Goldstein, 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 and wrongful death, the defendant Manuel M. Chauca appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated August 15, 2003, which denied his motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Manuel M. Chauca failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he was free from negligence and that his actions were not a proximate cause of the accident (see Siegel v Sweeney, 266 AD2d 200, 201 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment. Santucci, J.E, Altman, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 748, 776 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/croce-v-budget-rent-a-car-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack