Kalinoglu v. Kritikos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalinoglu v. Kritikos

273 A.D.2d 444, 711 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7402

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

DecidedJune 26, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 444 (Kalinoglu v. Kritikos) 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

Kalinoglu v. Kritikos, 273 A.D.2d 444, 711 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated July 23, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred when it denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant established as a matter of law that the injured plaintiffs actions were a superseding cause of her accident (see, Gilmore v Ritchie, 260 AD2d 347; Esposito v Rea, 243 AD2d 536; Smith v West Rochelle Travel Agency, 238 AD2d 398; Wright v New York City Tr. Auth., 221 AD2d 431), and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to this issue. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated July 23, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred when it denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant established as a matter of law that the injured plaintiffs actions were a superseding cause of her accident (see, Gilmore v Ritchie, 260 AD2d 347; Esposito v Rea, 243 AD2d 536; Smith v West Rochelle Travel Agency, 238 AD2d 398; Wright v New York City Tr. Auth., 221 AD2d 431), and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to this issue. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 444, 711 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalinoglu-v-kritikos-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack