Demetri v. Mallari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Demetri v. Mallari

295 A.D.2d 395, 743 N.Y.S.2d 317, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5993

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

DecidedJune 10, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 395 (Demetri v. Mallari) 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

Demetri v. Mallari, 295 A.D.2d 395, 743 N.Y.S.2d 317, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover dam[396]*396ages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered September 24, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. t

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their entitlement to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability by submitting evidence that the defendant’s vehicle crossed over the double yellow line on the road into oncoming traffic and struck the plaintiff Glenn Demetri’s vehicle. In opposition to the motion, the defendant submitted only an attorney’s affirmation which was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Browne v Castillo, 288 AD2d 415; Caso v Behme, 282 AD2d 493). Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover dam[396]*396ages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered September 24, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. t

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their entitlement to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability by submitting evidence that the defendant’s vehicle crossed over the double yellow line on the road into oncoming traffic and struck the plaintiff Glenn Demetri’s vehicle. In opposition to the motion, the defendant submitted only an attorney’s affirmation which was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Browne v Castillo, 288 AD2d 415; Caso v Behme, 282 AD2d 493). Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 395, 743 N.Y.S.2d 317, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demetri-v-mallari-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack