Morgan v. Candia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgan v. Candia

69 A.D.3d 500, 891 N.Y.2d 650

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 500 (Morgan v. Candia) 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

Morgan v. Candia, 69 A.D.3d 500, 891 N.Y.2d 650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly accepted plaintiffs untimely papers in opposition to defendants’ motion, as defendants did not suffer any prejudice (see Matter of Jordan v City of New York, 38 AD3d 336, 338 [2007]; Dinnocenzo v Jordache Enters., 213 AD2d 219 [1995]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and allowing for the circumstance that he was unable to provide an explanation for the rear-collision accident, we find that plaintiff has not shown facts and conditions from which it may reasonably be inferred that defendants bore any fault for the accident (see Morales v Morales, 55 AD3d 306 [2008]; Somers v [501]*501Condlin, 39 AD3d 289 [2007]; Black v Loomis, 236 AD2d 338 [1997]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

The court properly accepted plaintiffs untimely papers in opposition to defendants’ motion, as defendants did not suffer any prejudice (see Matter of Jordan v City of New York, 38 AD3d 336, 338 [2007]; Dinnocenzo v Jordache Enters., 213 AD2d 219 [1995]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and allowing for the circumstance that he was unable to provide an explanation for the rear-collision accident, we find that plaintiff has not shown facts and conditions from which it may reasonably be inferred that defendants bore any fault for the accident (see Morales v Morales, 55 AD3d 306 [2008]; Somers v [501]*501Condlin, 39 AD3d 289 [2007]; Black v Loomis, 236 AD2d 338 [1997]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 500, 891 N.Y.2d 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-candia-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack