Ismail v. Dial Exterminating Corp.

199 A.D.2d 201, 608 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12371

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered August 14, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We find a triable issue of fact as to whether appellant’s vehicle made impact with plaintiff’s van, precluding summary judgment in this negligence action (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364-365), and note that neither side submitted admissible documentary evidence in support of their respective positions (see, Canty v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 158 AD2d 271, 272 [police report]; Rue v Stokes, 191 AD2d 245 [MV-104]). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

Ismail v. Dial Exterminating Corp., 199 A.D.2d 201, 608 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

199 A.D.2d 201 (Ismail v. Dial Exterminating Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Andre v. Pomeroy
320 N.E.2d 853 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
Canty v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
158 A.D.2d 271 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Rue v. Stokes
191 A.D.2d 245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)