Kozak v. Hyjek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kozak v. Hyjek

221 A.D.2d 999, 635 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13501

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 999 (Kozak v. Hyjek) 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

Kozak v. Hyjek, 221 A.D.2d 999, 635 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, cross motion denied, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant established a complete defense by submitting proof in admissible form that the collision was caused by plaintiffs presence in his lane of travel, and plaintiff failed in response to offer proof in admissible form that defendant could have done something to avoid the collision (see, Moshier v Phoenix Cent. School Dist., 199 AD2d 1019, affd 83 NY2d 947; Gouchie v Gill, 198 AD2d 862; cf., Boyes v DeLellis, 210 AD2d 931). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Insurance Law.) Present—Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, cross motion denied, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant established a complete defense by submitting proof in admissible form that the collision was caused by plaintiffs presence in his lane of travel, and plaintiff failed in response to offer proof in admissible form that defendant could have done something to avoid the collision (see, Moshier v Phoenix Cent. School Dist., 199 AD2d 1019, affd 83 NY2d 947; Gouchie v Gill, 198 AD2d 862; cf., Boyes v DeLellis, 210 AD2d 931). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Insurance Law.) Present—Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 999, 635 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kozak-v-hyjek-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack