Ola Ali Abushihadeh v. Bravo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ola Ali Abushihadeh v. Bravo

142 A.D.3d 631, 36 N.Y.S.3d 822

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

DecidedAugust 24, 2016

Docket2015-05410

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 A.D.3d 631 (Ola Ali Abushihadeh v. Bravo) 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

Ola Ali Abushihadeh v. Bravo, 142 A.D.3d 631, 36 N.Y.S.3d 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated April 1, 2015, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the order appealed from was not entered on the defendants’ default such that the defendants are not aggrieved by the order (cf. CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144 [2010]). The Supreme Court granted the motion on the merits after a review of the arguments presented by both parties. Hence, the order appealed from was not granted on default and the defendants may appeal therefrom (see Matter of 144 Stuyvesant, LLC v Goncalves, 119 AD3d 695, 696 [2014]; Schlain v Women’s Radiology, 305 AD2d 173, 174 [2003]; Jann v Cassidy, 265 AD2d 873, 874 [1999]; cf. Thompson v Next Generation Corp., 240 AD2d 653, 654 [1997]).

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Mastro, J.R, Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, 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 defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated April 1, 2015, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the order appealed from was not entered on the defendants’ default such that the defendants are not aggrieved by the order (cf. CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144 [2010]). The Supreme Court granted the motion on the merits after a review of the arguments presented by both parties. Hence, the order appealed from was not granted on default and the defendants may appeal therefrom (see Matter of 144 Stuyvesant, LLC v Goncalves, 119 AD3d 695, 696 [2014]; Schlain v Women’s Radiology, 305 AD2d 173, 174 [2003]; Jann v Cassidy, 265 AD2d 873, 874 [1999]; cf. Thompson v Next Generation Corp., 240 AD2d 653, 654 [1997]).

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Mastro, J.R, Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 631, 36 N.Y.S.3d 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ola-ali-abushihadeh-v-bravo-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack