Doyle v. Davies

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doyle v. Davies

251 A.D.2d 619, 675 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7930

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

DecidedJune 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 619 (Doyle v. Davies) 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

Doyle v. Davies, 251 A.D.2d 619, 675 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants TCI Cable of Brookhaven d/b/a Brookhaven Cable TV, Inc., and Doe appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 25, 1997, as granted the motion by the defendant Gayle Davies for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.

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

We agree with the Supreme Court that there exist no triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the accident which gives rise to this action was proximately caused by negligence on the part of the defendant Gayle Davies. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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, the defendants TCI Cable of Brookhaven d/b/a Brookhaven Cable TV, Inc., and Doe appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 25, 1997, as granted the motion by the defendant Gayle Davies for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.

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

We agree with the Supreme Court that there exist no triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the accident which gives rise to this action was proximately caused by negligence on the part of the defendant Gayle Davies. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 619, 675 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-davies-nyappdiv-1998.