Davis v. Colon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Colon

27 A.D.3d 687, 810 N.Y.S.2d 911

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 687 (Davis v. Colon) 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. Colon, 27 A.D.3d 687, 810 N.Y.S.2d 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated November 29, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of his motion, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Where, as here, there is inconsistent deposition testimony as to how and where the subject accident occurred, a triable issue of fact exists, precluding summary judgment (see Aslam v Weiss, 308 AD2d 426, 427 [2003]). Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Skelos, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated November 29, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of his motion, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Where, as here, there is inconsistent deposition testimony as to how and where the subject accident occurred, a triable issue of fact exists, precluding summary judgment (see Aslam v Weiss, 308 AD2d 426, 427 [2003]). Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 687, 810 N.Y.S.2d 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-colon-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack