Mitchell v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchell v. Gonzalez

264 A.D.2d 644, 695 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9295

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 644 (Mitchell v. Gonzalez) 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

Mitchell v. Gonzalez, 264 A.D.2d 644, 695 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered December 28, 1998, which, in an action for personal injuries by plaintiff passenger [645]*645against defendants automobile owner and driver, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming in plaintiffs favor that an issue exists as to whether the cause of the car door’s opening and then reclosing on her thumb was the seatbelt inadvertently left outside the car when the door was closed, no issue exists as to whether defendant driver had notice of this allegedly hazardous condition. Moreover, nothing in the record tends to show that the clicking noise heard prior to the accident was indicative of this or any other hazard. Concur — Rubin, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered December 28, 1998, which, in an action for personal injuries by plaintiff passenger [645]*645against defendants automobile owner and driver, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming in plaintiffs favor that an issue exists as to whether the cause of the car door’s opening and then reclosing on her thumb was the seatbelt inadvertently left outside the car when the door was closed, no issue exists as to whether defendant driver had notice of this allegedly hazardous condition. Moreover, nothing in the record tends to show that the clicking noise heard prior to the accident was indicative of this or any other hazard. Concur — Rubin, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 644, 695 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-1999.