Dickens v. Merritt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dickens v. Merritt

123 A.D.2d 738, 507 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60881

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 738 (Dickens v. Merritt) 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

Dickens v. Merritt, 123 A.D.2d 738, 507 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Belmira Newell and Jay Newell appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), dated December 18, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs [739]*739complaint as against them and dismissing the cross claims asserted against them by the defendant Joseph D. Merritt.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, and the action is severed as to the defendant Joseph D. Merritt.

The vehicle driven by the defendant Jay Newell was stopped at an intersection waiting to make a left turn when it was rear ended by a vehicle driven by the defendant Joseph D. Merritt. No evidence was presented to show any fault on the part of the defendants Newell. Therefore, the motion should have been granted. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Belmira Newell and Jay Newell appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), dated December 18, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs [739]*739complaint as against them and dismissing the cross claims asserted against them by the defendant Joseph D. Merritt.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, and the action is severed as to the defendant Joseph D. Merritt.

The vehicle driven by the defendant Jay Newell was stopped at an intersection waiting to make a left turn when it was rear ended by a vehicle driven by the defendant Joseph D. Merritt. No evidence was presented to show any fault on the part of the defendants Newell. Therefore, the motion should have been granted. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 738, 507 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickens-v-merritt-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack