Davis v. Barnum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Barnum

113 A.D.2d 916, 493 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52546

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.2d 916 (Davis v. Barnum) 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

Davis v. Barnum, 113 A.D.2d 916, 493 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., (1) plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.), dated July 19, 1984, which granted defendants’ Steven and Lee Sokolow, motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as to them, and (2) defendant Valerie Barnum cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as granted the Sokolows’ motion without sua sponte granting summary judgment in her favor.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondents.

Special Term properly granted the Sokolows’ motion for summary judgment since plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of fact with respect to whether the Sokolows’ alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the accident in question (see, Lomnitz v Town of Woodbury, 81 AD2d 828). It was not error for Special Term to deny summary judgment sua sponte to defendant Barnum since issues of fact exist as to her. Whether plaintiff Elizabeth Davis and/or defendant Barnum were solely or partially at fault cannot be determined from the record as it now stands. Mangano, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Fiber, 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, etc., (1) plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.), dated July 19, 1984, which granted defendants’ Steven and Lee Sokolow, motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as to them, and (2) defendant Valerie Barnum cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as granted the Sokolows’ motion without sua sponte granting summary judgment in her favor.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondents.

Special Term properly granted the Sokolows’ motion for summary judgment since plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of fact with respect to whether the Sokolows’ alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the accident in question (see, Lomnitz v Town of Woodbury, 81 AD2d 828). It was not error for Special Term to deny summary judgment sua sponte to defendant Barnum since issues of fact exist as to her. Whether plaintiff Elizabeth Davis and/or defendant Barnum were solely or partially at fault cannot be determined from the record as it now stands. Mangano, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.2d 916, 493 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-barnum-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack