Enbok Rhee v. Wong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Enbok Rhee v. Wong

15 A.D.3d 319, 790 N.Y.S.2d 111, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 319 (Enbok Rhee v. Wong) 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

Enbok Rhee v. Wong, 15 A.D.3d 319, 790 N.Y.S.2d 111, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered January 15, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Lovell’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs seek recovery for personal injuries sustained in a three-car accident. It is alleged that Lovell’s automobile was struck by a hit-and-run driver and that plaintiffs’ vehicle came to a stop behind Lovell’s, and was then struck from the rear by defendant Wong’s vehicle, driving it into Lovell’s. The court denied summary relief sought by each of the parties, and only Lovell appeals. Triable issues of fact exist, including the reasonableness of Lovell’s failure to pull to the side of the road after being struck by the nonparty hit-and-run driver (Bertrand v Vingan, 249 AD2d 13 [1998]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered January 15, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Lovell’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs seek recovery for personal injuries sustained in a three-car accident. It is alleged that Lovell’s automobile was struck by a hit-and-run driver and that plaintiffs’ vehicle came to a stop behind Lovell’s, and was then struck from the rear by defendant Wong’s vehicle, driving it into Lovell’s. The court denied summary relief sought by each of the parties, and only Lovell appeals. Triable issues of fact exist, including the reasonableness of Lovell’s failure to pull to the side of the road after being struck by the nonparty hit-and-run driver (Bertrand v Vingan, 249 AD2d 13 [1998]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 319, 790 N.Y.S.2d 111, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enbok-rhee-v-wong-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack