Levine v. Dagio Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levine v. Dagio Construction Corp.

261 A.D.2d 588, 690 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5711

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

DecidedMay 24, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 588 (Levine v. Dagio Construction Corp.) 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

Levine v. Dagio Construction Corp., 261 A.D.2d 588, 690 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Mel Levine appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau [589]*589County (Winick, J.), dated September 10, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention that the proof before the Supreme Court conclusively showed that his vehicle was stopped and in the middle lane of the highway when it was struck from behind by the vehicle owned by defendant Dagio Construction Corp. and operated by the defendant Francesco Arizzi, contradictions in the deposition testimony given by the appellant and Arizzi evince triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Benyarko v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 162 AD2d 572; Young v City of New York, 113 AD2d 833).

Accordingly, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim insofar as asserted against him was properly denied. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Altman, 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, the plaintiff Mel Levine appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau [589]*589County (Winick, J.), dated September 10, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention that the proof before the Supreme Court conclusively showed that his vehicle was stopped and in the middle lane of the highway when it was struck from behind by the vehicle owned by defendant Dagio Construction Corp. and operated by the defendant Francesco Arizzi, contradictions in the deposition testimony given by the appellant and Arizzi evince triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Benyarko v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 162 AD2d 572; Young v City of New York, 113 AD2d 833).

Accordingly, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim insofar as asserted against him was properly denied. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 588, 690 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-dagio-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack