Karmiol v. Astorino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karmiol v. Astorino

12 A.D.3d 415, 783 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13358

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 415 (Karmiol v. Astorino) 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

Karmiol v. Astorino, 12 A.D.3d 415, 783 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated October 8, 2003, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In support of his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the cross motion properly was denied. Prudenti, PJ., Ritter, H. Miller 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 defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated October 8, 2003, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In support of his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the cross motion properly was denied. Prudenti, PJ., Ritter, H. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 415, 783 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karmiol-v-astorino-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack