Frutchey v. Felicita

New York Court of Appeals

Frutchey v. Felicita

896 N.E.2d 77, 11 N.Y.3d 764

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 11, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 896 N.E.2d 77 (Frutchey v. Felicita) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frutchey v. Felicita, 896 N.E.2d 77, 11 N.Y.3d 764 (N.Y. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the motion by defendants Michael V. DeLosa and Allen’s Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. for summary judgment denied. Plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact concerning whether (1) defendant DeLosa acted negligently in traveling at an excessive speed and in following too closely to Nichols’s vehicle, given the road and weather conditions and, (2) if so, such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident (see Herbert v Morgan Drive-A-Way, 202 AD2d 886, 888-889 [1994, Yesawich Jr., J., dissenting], revd on dissenting mem 84 NY2d 835 [1994]; Esposito v Wright, 28 AD3d 1142, 1144 [4th Dept 2006]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the motion by defendants Michael V. DeLosa and Allen’s Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. for summary judgment denied. Plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact concerning whether (1) defendant DeLosa acted negligently in traveling at an excessive speed and in following too closely to Nichols’s vehicle, given the road and weather conditions and, (2) if so, such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident (see Herbert v Morgan Drive-A-Way, 202 AD2d 886, 888-889 [1994, Yesawich Jr., J., dissenting], revd on dissenting mem 84 NY2d 835 [1994]; Esposito v Wright, 28 AD3d 1142, 1144 [4th Dept 2006]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

896 N.E.2d 77, 11 N.Y.3d 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frutchey-v-felicita-ny-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack