Heltz v. Barratt

New York Court of Appeals

Heltz v. Barratt

27 N.E.3d 471, 24 N.Y.3d 1185, 3 N.Y.S.3d 757

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 27 N.E.3d 471 (Heltz v. Barratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heltz v. Barratt, 27 N.E.3d 471, 24 N.Y.3d 1185, 3 N.Y.S.3d 757 (N.Y. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order af[1187]*1187firmed, with costs. Plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendant Barratt had an opportunity to avoid the collision.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order af[1187]*1187firmed, with costs. Plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendant Barratt had an opportunity to avoid the collision.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 N.E.3d 471, 24 N.Y.3d 1185, 3 N.Y.S.3d 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heltz-v-barratt-ny-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack