DeJesus v. Alba

New York Court of Appeals

DeJesus v. Alba

928 N.E.2d 409, 14 N.Y.3d 860, 902 N.Y.S.2d 27

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 6, 2010

Docket144 SSM 16

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 928 N.E.2d 409 (DeJesus v. Alba) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DeJesus v. Alba, 928 N.E.2d 409, 14 N.Y.3d 860, 902 N.Y.S.2d 27 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. The Appellate Division properly concluded that no triable issues of fact existed whether defendant driver acted prudently under the circumstances.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. The Appellate Division properly concluded that no triable issues of fact existed whether defendant driver acted prudently under the circumstances.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

928 N.E.2d 409, 14 N.Y.3d 860, 902 N.Y.S.2d 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dejesus-v-alba-ny-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack