Konsistorum v. Style Management Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Konsistorum v. Style Management Co.

3 A.D.3d 552, 770 N.Y.S.2d 645

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 552 (Konsistorum v. Style Management Co.) 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

Konsistorum v. Style Management Co., 3 A.D.3d 552, 770 N.Y.S.2d 645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs ap[553]*553peal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonina, J.), dated December 5, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability because issues of fact exist as to whether the taxicab driven by the defendant Aziz Urrehman actually struck the plaintiff Marc A. Konsistorum (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Townes, 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 plaintiffs ap[553]*553peal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonina, J.), dated December 5, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability because issues of fact exist as to whether the taxicab driven by the defendant Aziz Urrehman actually struck the plaintiff Marc A. Konsistorum (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 552, 770 N.Y.S.2d 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/konsistorum-v-style-management-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack