Orio v. Barsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orio v. Barsky

253 A.D.2d 802, 677 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9575

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 802 (Orio v. Barsky) 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

Orio v. Barsky, 253 A.D.2d 802, 677 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant National Car Rental System, Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated September 8, 1997, which denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The plaintiffs’ submissions were sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the appellant’s conclusory assertions did not raise an issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Cebula v Bonime, 92 AD2d 856). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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 defendant National Car Rental System, Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated September 8, 1997, which denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The plaintiffs’ submissions were sufficient to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the appellant’s conclusory assertions did not raise an issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Cebula v Bonime, 92 AD2d 856). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 802, 677 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orio-v-barsky-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack