Messana v. Rallo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Messana v. Rallo

48 A.D.3d 523, 852 N.Y.S.2d 245

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 523 (Messana v. Rallo) 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

Messana v. Rallo, 48 A.D.3d 523, 852 N.Y.S.2d 245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover [524]*524damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nelson, J.), entered March 19, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In response to the defendant’s showing of his entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent and, if so, whether his actions were a proximate cause of the accident (see Exime v Williams, 45 AD3d 633 [2007]; Croce v Budget Rent-A-Car Corp., 7 AD3d 748 [2004]; Siegel v Sweeney, 266 AD2d 200, 202 [1999]). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment should have been denied (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover [524]*524damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nelson, J.), entered March 19, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In response to the defendant’s showing of his entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent and, if so, whether his actions were a proximate cause of the accident (see Exime v Williams, 45 AD3d 633 [2007]; Croce v Budget Rent-A-Car Corp., 7 AD3d 748 [2004]; Siegel v Sweeney, 266 AD2d 200, 202 [1999]). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment should have been denied (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 523, 852 N.Y.S.2d 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/messana-v-rallo-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack