Hopkins v. Haber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hopkins v. Haber

39 A.D.3d 471, 835 N.Y.S.2d 233

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

DecidedApril 3, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 471 (Hopkins v. Haber) 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

Hopkins v. Haber, 39 A.D.3d 471, 835 N.Y.S.2d 233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bangs County (Demarest, J.), dated May 18, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s alleged negligence in the operation of her vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Here, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiffs’ decedent was crossing the street within the crosswalk and whether she contributed to the cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152 [a]; Parrinello v Davis, 2 AD3d 610 [2003]; Dragunova v Dondero, 305 AD2d 449 [2003]; Ruocco v Mulhall, 281 AD2d 406 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bangs County (Demarest, J.), dated May 18, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s alleged negligence in the operation of her vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Here, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiffs’ decedent was crossing the street within the crosswalk and whether she contributed to the cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152 [a]; Parrinello v Davis, 2 AD3d 610 [2003]; Dragunova v Dondero, 305 AD2d 449 [2003]; Ruocco v Mulhall, 281 AD2d 406 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 471, 835 N.Y.S.2d 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-haber-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack