Davis v. Stuckey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Stuckey

83 A.D.3d 611, 920 N.Y.S.2d 911

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

DecidedApril 28, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 611 (Davis v. Stuckey) 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. Stuckey, 83 A.D.3d 611, 920 N.Y.S.2d 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered April 23, 2010, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied in this action where infant plaintiff pedestrian was injured when he was struck by defendant’s car as he was running across the street. The deposition testimony of the parties, as well as the testimony of a nonparty witness, was conflicting and raises triable issues of fact with respect to the details of the accident, thereby precluding summary judgment based upon the applicability of the emergency doctrine (see Rhodes v United Parcel Serv., 33 AD3d 455 [2006]; compare Brown v Muniz, 61 AD3d 526, 526-527 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 715 [2010]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered April 23, 2010, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied in this action where infant plaintiff pedestrian was injured when he was struck by defendant’s car as he was running across the street. The deposition testimony of the parties, as well as the testimony of a nonparty witness, was conflicting and raises triable issues of fact with respect to the details of the accident, thereby precluding summary judgment based upon the applicability of the emergency doctrine (see Rhodes v United Parcel Serv., 33 AD3d 455 [2006]; compare Brown v Muniz, 61 AD3d 526, 526-527 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 715 [2010]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 611, 920 N.Y.S.2d 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-stuckey-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack