Gliem v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gliem v. Parker

145 A.D.2d 534

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 145 A.D.2d 534 (Gliem v. Parker) 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

Gliem v. Parker, 145 A.D.2d 534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, LMV Leasing, Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nasau County (DiPaola, J.), dated August 17, 1987, which, after a hearing, denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the third-party complaint, and all cross claims against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants-respondents Parker in action No. 1.

The Supreme Court properly denied, after a hearing, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it arising out of the automobile accident in question. We find that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident (see, Pugh v Hartford Ins. Group, 68 Misc 2d 1014).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Eiber, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— In an consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, LMV Leasing, Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nasau County (DiPaola, J.), dated August 17, 1987, which, after a hearing, denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the third-party complaint, and all cross claims against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants-respondents Parker in action No. 1.

The Supreme Court properly denied, after a hearing, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it arising out of the automobile accident in question. We find that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident (see, Pugh v Hartford Ins. Group, 68 Misc 2d 1014).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Eiber, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gliem-v-parker-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack