DeFalco v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeFalco v. Parker

271 A.D.2d 635, 707 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4497

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 635 (DeFalco v. Parker) 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

DeFalco v. Parker, 271 A.D.2d 635, 707 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Thrifty Paper Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), entered December 31, 1998, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant E. E. Cruz & Company, Inc., separately appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant E. E. Cruz & Company, Inc., is dismissed as withdrawn; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant Thrifty Paper Co., Inc. (hereinafter Thrifty), its cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Sanford v Stillitano, 241 AD2d 489). After Thrifty established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff, in opposition, adduced evidence in admissible form raising issues of fact as to whether Thrifty’s tractor-trailer truck collided with the rear of a vehicle owned by the defendant R&D Mechanical Co., which may have caused or contributed to the alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiff Bernadette DeFalco in this chain-reaction mutli-vehicle accident (see, Poll v Mallah, 267 AD2d 442; Hudson v Cole, 264 AD2d 439; Suleiman v Speedling, 262 AD2d 397; Sanford v Stillitano, supra; Omrami v Socrates, 227 AD2d 459; Cofrancesco v Murino, 225 AD2d 648; Acampora v Davis, 203 AD2d 399).

Thrifty’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, j. P., Ritter, Krausman and Smith, 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., the defendant Thrifty Paper Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), entered December 31, 1998, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant E. E. Cruz & Company, Inc., separately appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant E. E. Cruz & Company, Inc., is dismissed as withdrawn; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant Thrifty Paper Co., Inc. (hereinafter Thrifty), its cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Sanford v Stillitano, 241 AD2d 489). After Thrifty established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff, in opposition, adduced evidence in admissible form raising issues of fact as to whether Thrifty’s tractor-trailer truck collided with the rear of a vehicle owned by the defendant R&D Mechanical Co., which may have caused or contributed to the alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiff Bernadette DeFalco in this chain-reaction mutli-vehicle accident (see, Poll v Mallah, 267 AD2d 442; Hudson v Cole, 264 AD2d 439; Suleiman v Speedling, 262 AD2d 397; Sanford v Stillitano, supra; Omrami v Socrates, 227 AD2d 459; Cofrancesco v Murino, 225 AD2d 648; Acampora v Davis, 203 AD2d 399).

Thrifty’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, j. P., Ritter, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 635, 707 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/defalco-v-parker-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack