Noriega v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Noriega v. King

15 A.D.3d 267, 789 N.Y.S.2d 491, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1530

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 267 (Noriega v. King) 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

Noriega v. King, 15 A.D.3d 267, 789 N.Y.S.2d 491, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered on or about June 14, 2004, which denied defendant King’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

King’s reliance on the emergency doctrine is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 292 AD2d 159 [2002]). In any event, evidence that King was approximately three car-lengths behind plaintiffs vehicle, which was being driven erratically, when he observed that vehicle’s brake lights, and that King may have been exceeding the posted speed limit when he struck plaintiffs vehicle, raise issues of fact precluding summary judgment in his favor (see Herbert v Morgan Drive-A-Way, 84 NY2d 835 [1994]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered on or about June 14, 2004, which denied defendant King’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

King’s reliance on the emergency doctrine is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 292 AD2d 159 [2002]). In any event, evidence that King was approximately three car-lengths behind plaintiffs vehicle, which was being driven erratically, when he observed that vehicle’s brake lights, and that King may have been exceeding the posted speed limit when he struck plaintiffs vehicle, raise issues of fact precluding summary judgment in his favor (see Herbert v Morgan Drive-A-Way, 84 NY2d 835 [1994]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 267, 789 N.Y.S.2d 491, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noriega-v-king-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack