Gershman v. Habib

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gershman v. Habib

37 A.D.3d 530, 828 N.Y.S.2d 903

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 530 (Gershman v. Habib) 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

Gershman v. Habib, 37 A.D.3d 530, 828 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Richard Hockfield appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated September 14, 2005, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Richard Hockfield for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is granted.

The defendant Richard Hockfield established, as a matter of law, that he did not negligently operate his vehicle (see HouChing Chou v Wong, 34 AD3d 642 [2006]; Pena v Santana, 5 AD3d 649 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]; Berkshire Nursing Ctr., Inc. v Novello, 13 AD3d 327, 328-329 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted Hockfield’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Schmidt, J.E, Crane, Fisher and Dickerson, 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 defendant Richard Hockfield appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated September 14, 2005, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Richard Hockfield for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is granted.

The defendant Richard Hockfield established, as a matter of law, that he did not negligently operate his vehicle (see HouChing Chou v Wong, 34 AD3d 642 [2006]; Pena v Santana, 5 AD3d 649 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]; Berkshire Nursing Ctr., Inc. v Novello, 13 AD3d 327, 328-329 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted Hockfield’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Schmidt, J.E, Crane, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 530, 828 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gershman-v-habib-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack