Ochoa v. Portillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ochoa v. Portillo

266 A.D.2d 268, 698 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11333

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 268 (Ochoa v. Portillo) 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

Ochoa v. Portillo, 266 A.D.2d 268, 698 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated January 4, 1999, as denied his motion for summary judgment against the defendant Sondra D. Lieberman.

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

We agree with the Supreme Court that there are triable issues of fact concerning the reasonableness of the conduct of the defendant Sondra D. Lieberman, which preclude the award of summary judgment, in this case (see, Hurley v Izzo, 248 AD2d 674; LaFond v City of New York, 245 AD2d 268).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Schmidt 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, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated January 4, 1999, as denied his motion for summary judgment against the defendant Sondra D. Lieberman.

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

We agree with the Supreme Court that there are triable issues of fact concerning the reasonableness of the conduct of the defendant Sondra D. Lieberman, which preclude the award of summary judgment, in this case (see, Hurley v Izzo, 248 AD2d 674; LaFond v City of New York, 245 AD2d 268).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 268, 698 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ochoa-v-portillo-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack