Mikorski v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mikorski v. City of New York

3 A.D.3d 459, 770 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 904

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 459 (Mikorski v. City of New York) 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

Mikorski v. City of New York, 3 A.D.3d 459, 770 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered August 13, 2003, denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the vehicle owned by defendant City and operated by defendant Maiorana hit plaintiffs vehicle from behind, summary judgment as to liability was properly denied since Maiorana adequately explained the collision as attributable to circumstances other than negligence on his part. Officer Maiorana’s testimony that he was riding his scooter in formation as part of a presidential detail, and was some three scooter lengths behind plaintiffs vehicle—also part of the formation— when he hit a roadway defect and lost control of his vehicle, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the complained-of accident was attributable to Maiorana’s negligence (see Ebanks v Triboro Coach Corp., 304 AD2d 406 [2003]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered August 13, 2003, denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the vehicle owned by defendant City and operated by defendant Maiorana hit plaintiffs vehicle from behind, summary judgment as to liability was properly denied since Maiorana adequately explained the collision as attributable to circumstances other than negligence on his part. Officer Maiorana’s testimony that he was riding his scooter in formation as part of a presidential detail, and was some three scooter lengths behind plaintiffs vehicle—also part of the formation— when he hit a roadway defect and lost control of his vehicle, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the complained-of accident was attributable to Maiorana’s negligence (see Ebanks v Triboro Coach Corp., 304 AD2d 406 [2003]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 459, 770 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mikorski-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack