Kelly v. Russo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kelly v. Russo

22 A.D.3d 807, 802 N.Y.S.2d 633

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 807 (Kelly v. Russo) 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

Kelly v. Russo, 22 A.D.3d 807, 802 N.Y.S.2d 633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated July 29, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

[808]*808Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence in admissible form entitling them to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defendant driver’s negligence (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1980]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Covello, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated July 29, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

[808]*808Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence in admissible form entitling them to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defendant driver’s negligence (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). In opposition, the defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1980]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 807, 802 N.Y.S.2d 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-russo-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack