Ismail v. Dial Exterminating Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ismail v. Dial Exterminating Corp.

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

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 201 (Ismail v. Dial Exterminating Corp.) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 201, 608 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ismail-v-dial-exterminating-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack