Oakley v. Town of Brookhaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oakley v. Town of Brookhaven

273 A.D.2d 211, 709 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6264

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

DecidedJune 5, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 211 (Oakley v. Town of Brookhaven) 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

Oakley v. Town of Brookhaven, 273 A.D.2d 211, 709 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered June 23, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants established a prima facie case for judgment in their favor as a matter of law. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, they failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the [212]*212defendants’ fault (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b]). Therefore, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be granted and the complaint dismissed (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Bliss v State of New York, 272 AD2d 567; Wilson v State of New York, 269 AD2d 854). Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, 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 defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered June 23, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants established a prima facie case for judgment in their favor as a matter of law. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, they failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the [212]*212defendants’ fault (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b]). Therefore, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be granted and the complaint dismissed (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Bliss v State of New York, 272 AD2d 567; Wilson v State of New York, 269 AD2d 854). Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 211, 709 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oakley-v-town-of-brookhaven-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack