Goodman v. Cooper Square Auto Repair, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodman v. Cooper Square Auto Repair, Inc.

253 A.D.2d 736, 677 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9463

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 736 (Goodman v. Cooper Square Auto Repair, Inc.) 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

Goodman v. Cooper Square Auto Repair, Inc., 253 A.D.2d 736, 677 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party defendant Checker Glass Corp. appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated September 8, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, third-party complaint, and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and (2) an order of the same court entered December 4, 1997, which denied its motion for reargument.

[737]*737Ordered that the appeal from the order entered December 4, 1997, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 8, 1997, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill, of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant’s alleged violations of various traffic regulations would, if true, raise triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether its negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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, etc., the defendant third-party defendant Checker Glass Corp. appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated September 8, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, third-party complaint, and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and (2) an order of the same court entered December 4, 1997, which denied its motion for reargument.

[737]*737Ordered that the appeal from the order entered December 4, 1997, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 8, 1997, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill, of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant’s alleged violations of various traffic regulations would, if true, raise triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether its negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 736, 677 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-cooper-square-auto-repair-inc-nyappdiv-1998.