Miano v. 1-9 Seafood Plaza, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miano v. 1-9 Seafood Plaza, Inc.

57 A.D.3d 488, 867 N.Y.2d 706

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 488 (Miano v. 1-9 Seafood Plaza, 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

Miano v. 1-9 Seafood Plaza, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 488, 867 N.Y.2d 706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The evidence submitted by the appellants failed to eliminate all issues of fact as to whether the appellant driver used reasonable care to avoid the subject motor vehicle collision (see Rotondi v Rao, 49 AD3d 520, 521 [2008]; Cox v Nunez, 23 AD3d 427, 427-428 [2005]) and whether his failure to observe that which should have been observed was a proximate cause of the accident (see Judice v DeAngelo, 272 AD2d 583 [2000]). Therefore, the evidence submitted by the appellants in support of their motion failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers submitted by the plaintiffs (id. at 324). Spolzino, J.P, Covello, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

The evidence submitted by the appellants failed to eliminate all issues of fact as to whether the appellant driver used reasonable care to avoid the subject motor vehicle collision (see Rotondi v Rao, 49 AD3d 520, 521 [2008]; Cox v Nunez, 23 AD3d 427, 427-428 [2005]) and whether his failure to observe that which should have been observed was a proximate cause of the accident (see Judice v DeAngelo, 272 AD2d 583 [2000]). Therefore, the evidence submitted by the appellants in support of their motion failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers submitted by the plaintiffs (id. at 324). Spolzino, J.P, Covello, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 488, 867 N.Y.2d 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miano-v-1-9-seafood-plaza-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack