Miles v. Licata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miles v. Licata

227 A.D.2d 982, 643 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6948

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

DecidedMay 31, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 982 (Miles v. Licata) 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

Miles v. Licata, 227 A.D.2d 982, 643 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability. Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364). Indeed, a plaintiff is generally entitled to summary judgment " 'only in cases in which there is no conflict at all in the evidence, the defendant’s conduct fell far below any permissible standard of due care, and the plaintiffs conduct either was not really involved (such as with a passenger) or was clearly of exemplary prudence in the circumstances.’ (4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3212.03)” (Andre v Pomeroy, supra, at 365). Here, questions of fact exist regarding plaintiffs comparative fault and whether defendant Licata acted reasonably under the circumstances, precluding summary judgment (see, e.g., Gudenzi-Ruess v Custom Envtl. Sys., 212 AD2d 952, 953; see also, Cincotta v Johnson, 130 AD2d 539, 540-541). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability. Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364). Indeed, a plaintiff is generally entitled to summary judgment " 'only in cases in which there is no conflict at all in the evidence, the defendant’s conduct fell far below any permissible standard of due care, and the plaintiffs conduct either was not really involved (such as with a passenger) or was clearly of exemplary prudence in the circumstances.’ (4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3212.03)” (Andre v Pomeroy, supra, at 365). Here, questions of fact exist regarding plaintiffs comparative fault and whether defendant Licata acted reasonably under the circumstances, precluding summary judgment (see, e.g., Gudenzi-Ruess v Custom Envtl. Sys., 212 AD2d 952, 953; see also, Cincotta v Johnson, 130 AD2d 539, 540-541). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 982, 643 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-licata-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack