Muzammil v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muzammil v. Singh

275 A.D.2d 398, 712 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8830

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

DecidedAugust 21, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 398 (Muzammil v. Singh) 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

Muzammil v. Singh, 275 A.D.2d 398, 712 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an or[399]*399der of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated September 24, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that in opposition to the plaintiffs showing of a prima facie case on the issue of liability, the defendants raised material issues of fact. Thus, summary judgment was properly denied (see, Epstein v Scally, 99 AD2d 713). Moreover, where, as here, the failure to wear a seat belt is alleged to be the cause of the accident, the conduct of the plaintiff Javed Muzammil in failing to wear a seat belt may be considered on the issue of liability (see, Roach v Szatko, 244 AD2d 470). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 from an or[399]*399der of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated September 24, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that in opposition to the plaintiffs showing of a prima facie case on the issue of liability, the defendants raised material issues of fact. Thus, summary judgment was properly denied (see, Epstein v Scally, 99 AD2d 713). Moreover, where, as here, the failure to wear a seat belt is alleged to be the cause of the accident, the conduct of the plaintiff Javed Muzammil in failing to wear a seat belt may be considered on the issue of liability (see, Roach v Szatko, 244 AD2d 470). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 398, 712 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muzammil-v-singh-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack