Harrison v. Leddo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harrison v. Leddo

275 A.D.2d 343, 712 N.Y.S.2d 424

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

DecidedAugust 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 343 (Harrison v. Leddo) 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

Harrison v. Leddo, 275 A.D.2d 343, 712 N.Y.S.2d 424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, Firebird Construction Corp., and Bi-County Construction Corp. and Firebird Construction Corp., a Joint Venture, defendants in Action Nos. 1 and 2, separately appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated June 11, 1999, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross claims in Action Nos. 1 and 2 insofar as asserted against them.

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

At their examinations before trial, Sharon Harrison, the plaintiff in Action No. 1 and a defendant in Action No. 2, and Thomas Smalling, a defendant in Action No. 1 and a plaintiff in Action No. 2, testified that they were not confused when driving through the construction zone where they collided head-on (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308). This testimony raises triable issues of fact, and summary judgment cannot be granted at this juncture (see, Stoehr v Levere, 183 AD2d 886).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, Firebird Construction Corp., and Bi-County Construction Corp. and Firebird Construction Corp., a Joint Venture, defendants in Action Nos. 1 and 2, separately appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated June 11, 1999, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross claims in Action Nos. 1 and 2 insofar as asserted against them.

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

At their examinations before trial, Sharon Harrison, the plaintiff in Action No. 1 and a defendant in Action No. 2, and Thomas Smalling, a defendant in Action No. 1 and a plaintiff in Action No. 2, testified that they were not confused when driving through the construction zone where they collided head-on (see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308). This testimony raises triable issues of fact, and summary judgment cannot be granted at this juncture (see, Stoehr v Levere, 183 AD2d 886).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 343, 712 N.Y.S.2d 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-leddo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack