Malekan v. City Harvest, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malekan v. City Harvest, Inc.

234 A.D.2d 94, 651 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12397

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 94 (Malekan v. City Harvest, Inc.) 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

Malekan v. City Harvest, Inc., 234 A.D.2d 94, 651 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about May 14, 1996, which, in a rear-end accident case, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ conflicting versions of the accident raise triable issue of fact, including whether, as plaintiff claims, his vehicle was stopped for some length of time prior to the accident or whether, as defendants claim, plaintiff suddenly stopped his vehicle without reason or warning (see, Tann v Herlands, 224 AD2d 230), and whether defendant driver had been tailgating in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a), and, if so, whether such was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Darmento v Pacific Molasses Co., 81 NY2d 985). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about May 14, 1996, which, in a rear-end accident case, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ conflicting versions of the accident raise triable issue of fact, including whether, as plaintiff claims, his vehicle was stopped for some length of time prior to the accident or whether, as defendants claim, plaintiff suddenly stopped his vehicle without reason or warning (see, Tann v Herlands, 224 AD2d 230), and whether defendant driver had been tailgating in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a), and, if so, whether such was a proximate cause of the accident (see, Darmento v Pacific Molasses Co., 81 NY2d 985). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 94, 651 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malekan-v-city-harvest-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack