Moses v. Brant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moses v. Brant

18 A.D.3d 454, 793 N.Y.S.2d 777, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789

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

DecidedMay 2, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 454 (Moses v. Brant) 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

Moses v. Brant, 18 A.D.3d 454, 793 N.Y.S.2d 777, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Gigante, J.), dated April 5, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising issues of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent, and, if so, whether such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident in question (see e.g. Viscusi v Fenner, 10 AD3d 361 [2004]; Zimmerman v Plotkin, 244 AD2d 481 [1997]; Hotzoglou v Hotzoglou, 221 AD2d 594 [1995]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, 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 wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Gigante, J.), dated April 5, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising issues of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent, and, if so, whether such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident in question (see e.g. Viscusi v Fenner, 10 AD3d 361 [2004]; Zimmerman v Plotkin, 244 AD2d 481 [1997]; Hotzoglou v Hotzoglou, 221 AD2d 594 [1995]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 454, 793 N.Y.S.2d 777, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moses-v-brant-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack