Kirkland v. Hirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kirkland v. Hirsch

296 A.D.2d 532, 745 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7558

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

DecidedJuly 22, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 296 A.D.2d 532 (Kirkland v. Hirsch) 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

Kirkland v. Hirsch, 296 A.D.2d 532, 745 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated August 14, 2001, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging personal injuries and wrongful death.

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

The Supreme Court properly concluded that there exist triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver used reasonable care in the operation of his vehicle, and whether his [533]*533negligence, if any, contributed to the accident (see Rawson v City of New York, 292 AD2d 583; Lopez v Coleman, 265 AD2d 454; McCann v Mahoney, 214 AD2d 607; Bank of N.Y. v Walsh, 129 AD2d 668). O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated August 14, 2001, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging personal injuries and wrongful death.

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

The Supreme Court properly concluded that there exist triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver used reasonable care in the operation of his vehicle, and whether his [533]*533negligence, if any, contributed to the accident (see Rawson v City of New York, 292 AD2d 583; Lopez v Coleman, 265 AD2d 454; McCann v Mahoney, 214 AD2d 607; Bank of N.Y. v Walsh, 129 AD2d 668). O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 532, 745 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirkland-v-hirsch-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack