Newell v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newell v. Rodriguez

300 A.D.2d 258, 751 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13390

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 31, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered April 30, 2002, which denied the motion of defendants-respondents-appellants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and the cross motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment as to liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs when the car in which they were riding became disabled on a highway and was struck from behind, triable issues of material fact preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of either defendant movants or plaintiff cross movants. These [259] issues include whether the driver of the car that became disabled was negligent, in either driving too fast or inattentively, and by reason of any such negligence failed to avoid the debris to which the vehicle’s breakdown is attributed, thus causing or contributing to the risk of the ensuing collision (see Sutton v Carolei, 244 AD2d 156). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered April 30, 2002, which denied the motion of defendants-respondents-appellants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and the cross motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment as to liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs when the car in which they were riding became disabled on a highway and was struck from behind, triable issues of material fact preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of either defendant movants or plaintiff cross movants. These [259] issues include whether the driver of the car that became disabled was negligent, in either driving too fast or inattentively, and by reason of any such negligence failed to avoid the debris to which the vehicle’s breakdown is attributed, thus causing or contributing to the risk of the ensuing collision (see Sutton v Carolei, 244 AD2d 156). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Newell v. Rodriguez, 300 A.D.2d 258, 751 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

300 A.D.2d 258 (Newell v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related