Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp.

261 A.D.2d 508, 687 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5428

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

DecidedMay 17, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 508 (Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp.) 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

Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 261 A.D.2d 508, 687 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated June 2, 1998, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly addressed the merits of the cross motion, notwithstanding that it was made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue (see, CPLR 3212 [a]; Quinlan v Kaufman, 258 AD2d 453). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, based on the testimony by the sole eyewitness to the accident and the absence of any evidence of negligence by the defendants (see, Kiernan v Hendrick, 116 AD2d 779, 780-781). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated June 2, 1998, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly addressed the merits of the cross motion, notwithstanding that it was made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue (see, CPLR 3212 [a]; Quinlan v Kaufman, 258 AD2d 453). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, based on the testimony by the sole eyewitness to the accident and the absence of any evidence of negligence by the defendants (see, Kiernan v Hendrick, 116 AD2d 779, 780-781). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 508, 687 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-98-mag-leasing-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack