Howell v. Verona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howell v. Verona

35 A.D.3d 664, 824 N.Y.S.2d 921

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 664 (Howell v. Verona) 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

Howell v. Verona, 35 A.D.3d 664, 824 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated January 3, 2006, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability by presenting proof that the defendant Jessica Verona proceeded into the intersection and failed to yield the right of way to his vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) (see McNamara v Fishkowitz, 18 AD3d 721 [2005]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s comparative negligence.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P, Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated January 3, 2006, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability by presenting proof that the defendant Jessica Verona proceeded into the intersection and failed to yield the right of way to his vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) (see McNamara v Fishkowitz, 18 AD3d 721 [2005]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s comparative negligence.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P, Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 664, 824 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-verona-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack