Karram v. Cirillo

281 A.D.2d 946, 722 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2823
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 21, 2001·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The submissions of defendant in support of the motion raise triable issues of fact whether he activated his turn signal and whether he came to an abrupt stop without warning prior to the accident (see, Weber v Chapman, 238 AD2d 946; Silvestro v Wartella, 224 AD2d 799; Thorndike v Coombes, 63 AD2d 843, 845). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Kehoe, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

Karram v. Cirillo, 281 A.D.2d 946, 722 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

281 A.D.2d 946 (Karram v. Cirillo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Graczyk v. Allen
190 N.Y.S.3d 545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Haust v. United States
953 F. Supp. 2d 353 (N.D. New York, 2013)
Gawera v. Scrogg
4 A.D.3d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Bixler v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.
309 A.D.2d 1285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)