Mattarella v. Sparacio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mattarella v. Sparacio

201 A.D.2d 468, 609 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1004

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 468 (Mattarella v. Sparacio) 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

Mattarella v. Sparacio, 201 A.D.2d 468, 609 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Woodmont Development Corporation and Simon Building Corporation appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated October 9, 1991, as denied their motion for [469]*469summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

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

While the appellants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish the existence of material issues of fact. Specifically, the plaintiffs produced evidence of the possibility that the appellants’ construction activities in the area were at least partially responsible for the automobile accident which injured the plaintiffs. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, 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 defendants Woodmont Development Corporation and Simon Building Corporation appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated October 9, 1991, as denied their motion for [469]*469summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

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

While the appellants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish the existence of material issues of fact. Specifically, the plaintiffs produced evidence of the possibility that the appellants’ construction activities in the area were at least partially responsible for the automobile accident which injured the plaintiffs. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 468, 609 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattarella-v-sparacio-nyappdiv-1994.