Finocchiaro v. Steckler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finocchiaro v. Steckler

270 A.D.2d 226, 704 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2505

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 226 (Finocchiaro v. Steckler) 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

Finocchiaro v. Steckler, 270 A.D.2d 226, 704 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated February 9, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant sustained his initial burden of demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that his vehicle was stopped when the rear-end collision occurred (see, Power v Hupart, 260 AD2d 458). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, she failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent (see, Dwyer v Cohen, 262 AD2d 600). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Smith, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated February 9, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant sustained his initial burden of demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that his vehicle was stopped when the rear-end collision occurred (see, Power v Hupart, 260 AD2d 458). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, she failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent (see, Dwyer v Cohen, 262 AD2d 600). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 226, 704 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finocchiaro-v-steckler-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack