Mulhern v. Scibelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mulhern v. Scibelli

139 A.D.3d 683, 29 N.Y.S.3d 196

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

DecidedMay 4, 2016

Docket2015-09362

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 683 (Mulhern v. Scibelli) 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

Mulhern v. Scibelli, 139 A.D.3d 683, 29 N.Y.S.3d 196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Vincenzo Scibelli and Rose Scibelli appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Velasquez, J.), entered July 20, 2015, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

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

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against them, the defendants Vincenzo Scibelli and Rose Scibelli demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they were free from fault in the happening of the alleged accident (see Miller v United Parcel Serv., Inc., 131 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2015]; Pollack v Margolin, 84 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2011]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion.

Balkin, J.P., Roman, Maltese and Connolly, 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, the defendants Vincenzo Scibelli and Rose Scibelli appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Velasquez, J.), entered July 20, 2015, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

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

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against them, the defendants Vincenzo Scibelli and Rose Scibelli demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they were free from fault in the happening of the alleged accident (see Miller v United Parcel Serv., Inc., 131 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2015]; Pollack v Margolin, 84 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2011]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion.

Balkin, J.P., Roman, Maltese and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 683, 29 N.Y.S.3d 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulhern-v-scibelli-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack