Elefantis v. P.O.P. Displays, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elefantis v. P.O.P. Displays, Inc.

44 A.D.3d 608, 843 N.Y.S.2d 359

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 608 (Elefantis v. P.O.P. Displays, Inc.) 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

Elefantis v. P.O.P. Displays, Inc., 44 A.D.3d 608, 843 N.Y.S.2d 359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated September 12, 2006, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

In support of his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that the defendant Antonio Marcial was negligent in backing the tractor-trailer owned by the defendant P.O.P. Displays, Inc., into the plaintiffs parked vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1211 [a]; Ortiz v Calavera, 26 AD3d 319 [2006]; Garcia v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 10 AD3d 339 [2004]). However, in opposition, the defendants submitted competent evidence directly contradicting the plaintiffs version of how the accident occurred and raised a triable issue of fact on the issue of whether the plaintiffs vehicle was parked or standing behind the tractor-trailer at any time prior to the accident. Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been denied. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Carni, 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 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated September 12, 2006, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

In support of his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that the defendant Antonio Marcial was negligent in backing the tractor-trailer owned by the defendant P.O.P. Displays, Inc., into the plaintiffs parked vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1211 [a]; Ortiz v Calavera, 26 AD3d 319 [2006]; Garcia v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 10 AD3d 339 [2004]). However, in opposition, the defendants submitted competent evidence directly contradicting the plaintiffs version of how the accident occurred and raised a triable issue of fact on the issue of whether the plaintiffs vehicle was parked or standing behind the tractor-trailer at any time prior to the accident. Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been denied. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Carni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 608, 843 N.Y.S.2d 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elefantis-v-pop-displays-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack