Karram v. Cirillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karram v. Cirillo

281 A.D.2d 946, 722 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2823

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 946 (Karram v. Cirillo) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 946, 722 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karram-v-cirillo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack