Mihaescu v. Har Tzion, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mihaescu v. Har Tzion, Ltd.

8 A.D.3d 638, 778 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9131

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 638 (Mihaescu v. Har Tzion, Ltd.) 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

Mihaescu v. Har Tzion, Ltd., 8 A.D.3d 638, 778 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated September 17, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. ■

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the defendants proffered sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the vehicle driven by the defendant Guy Lombrozo and owned by the defendant Har Tzion, Ltd., struck the plaintiffs’ vehicle (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Smith, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Skelos, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated September 17, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. ■

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the defendants proffered sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the vehicle driven by the defendant Guy Lombrozo and owned by the defendant Har Tzion, Ltd., struck the plaintiffs’ vehicle (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Smith, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 638, 778 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mihaescu-v-har-tzion-ltd-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack