Mosheyev v. Pilevsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mosheyev v. Pilevsky

283 A.D.2d 469, 725 N.Y.S.2d 206, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5008

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

DecidedMay 14, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 469 (Mosheyev v. Pilevsky) 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

Mosheyev v. Pilevsky, 283 A.D.2d 469, 725 N.Y.S.2d 206, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 11, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

It is well settled that summary judgment is a drastic remedy that is to be granted only where there is no clear triable issue of fact (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361). In deciding the motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party (see, Matter of Benincasa v Garrubbo, 141 AD2d 636). Here, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion, as the parties’ competing contentions raise a question of fact as to how the accident occurred. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 11, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

It is well settled that summary judgment is a drastic remedy that is to be granted only where there is no clear triable issue of fact (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361). In deciding the motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party (see, Matter of Benincasa v Garrubbo, 141 AD2d 636). Here, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion, as the parties’ competing contentions raise a question of fact as to how the accident occurred. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 469, 725 N.Y.S.2d 206, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosheyev-v-pilevsky-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack