Mogavero v. Pepe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mogavero v. Pepe

194 A.D.2d 772, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6725

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

DecidedJune 28, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 772 (Mogavero v. Pepe) 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

Mogavero v. Pepe, 194 A.D.2d 772, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated March 5, 1991, as granted the motion of the defendant Pepe for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Inasmuch as defendant Pepe reported the theft of his motor vehicle prior to the accident and the operator of the vehicle at the time of the accident subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree based on his possession of the stolen vehicle, there was no factual issue to be resolved with respect to whether the operator of the vehicle was using it with the consent of the owner (see, Gee v Gee, 113 AD2d 736), and the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant Pepe’s motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, 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, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated March 5, 1991, as granted the motion of the defendant Pepe for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Inasmuch as defendant Pepe reported the theft of his motor vehicle prior to the accident and the operator of the vehicle at the time of the accident subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree based on his possession of the stolen vehicle, there was no factual issue to be resolved with respect to whether the operator of the vehicle was using it with the consent of the owner (see, Gee v Gee, 113 AD2d 736), and the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant Pepe’s motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 772, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mogavero-v-pepe-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack