Delgado v. Sikora

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Delgado v. Sikora

227 A.D.2d 176, 642 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852

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

DecidedMay 7, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 176 (Delgado v. Sikora) 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

Delgado v. Sikora, 227 A.D.2d 176, 642 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about February 28, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action arising out of a hit and run automobile accident, defendant’s testimony at deposition that at the time of the accident, his vehicle was parked at his place of employment and he possessed the only set of keys to it was insufficient to eliminate issues of fact, including the identity of the car involved in the accident, and, if it were defendant’s vehicle which was so involved, the presumption of permissive use imputed to the owner under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. Defendant never reported the vehicle stolen, and, in fact, there is no such evidence in the record (see, Guerrieri v Gray, 203 AD2d 324; MVAIC v Levinson, 218 AD2d 606). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about February 28, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action arising out of a hit and run automobile accident, defendant’s testimony at deposition that at the time of the accident, his vehicle was parked at his place of employment and he possessed the only set of keys to it was insufficient to eliminate issues of fact, including the identity of the car involved in the accident, and, if it were defendant’s vehicle which was so involved, the presumption of permissive use imputed to the owner under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. Defendant never reported the vehicle stolen, and, in fact, there is no such evidence in the record (see, Guerrieri v Gray, 203 AD2d 324; MVAIC v Levinson, 218 AD2d 606). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 176, 642 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delgado-v-sikora-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack