Oduor v. Huggins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oduor v. Huggins

33 A.D.3d 402, 822 N.Y.S.2d 282

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 402 (Oduor v. Huggins) 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

Oduor v. Huggins, 33 A.D.3d 402, 822 N.Y.S.2d 282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered February 27, 2006, which denied the motion of the Huggins defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The conflicting testimony respecting the manner in which the alleged accident occurred does not permit the conclusion, at this stage of the litigation, that Doris Huggins, the driver of the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger at the time of the accident, bore no responsibility for the accident. Nor does the record at this procedural juncture permit the conclusion that defendant Mamadou was, as the Hugginses contend, wholly responsible for the accident. Indeed, on this record, there is a triable factual issue as to whether Mamadou’s vehicle was involved in the accident. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Mazzarelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered February 27, 2006, which denied the motion of the Huggins defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The conflicting testimony respecting the manner in which the alleged accident occurred does not permit the conclusion, at this stage of the litigation, that Doris Huggins, the driver of the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger at the time of the accident, bore no responsibility for the accident. Nor does the record at this procedural juncture permit the conclusion that defendant Mamadou was, as the Hugginses contend, wholly responsible for the accident. Indeed, on this record, there is a triable factual issue as to whether Mamadou’s vehicle was involved in the accident. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Mazzarelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 402, 822 N.Y.S.2d 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oduor-v-huggins-nyappdiv-2006.