Hernandez v. Ricci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. Ricci

15 A.D.3d 351, 788 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 351 (Hernandez v. Ricci) 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

Hernandez v. Ricci, 15 A.D.3d 351, 788 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated October 23, 2003, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the accident was caused as a result of an onset of a sudden, unforeseeable medical emergency (see State of New York v Susco, 245 AD2d 854 [1997]; Abish v Cetta, 155 AD2d 495 [1989]; Thomas v Hulslander, 233 AD2d 567 [1996]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Crane, J.E, Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, 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 defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated October 23, 2003, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the accident was caused as a result of an onset of a sudden, unforeseeable medical emergency (see State of New York v Susco, 245 AD2d 854 [1997]; Abish v Cetta, 155 AD2d 495 [1989]; Thomas v Hulslander, 233 AD2d 567 [1996]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Crane, J.E, Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 351, 788 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-ricci-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack