Ortiz v. Pina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Pina

298 A.D.2d 509, 748 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9945

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 509 (Ortiz v. Pina) 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

Ortiz v. Pina, 298 A.D.2d 509, 748 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated December 19, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[510]*510The plaintiff was a passenger in a livery cab owned and operated by the defendant. She was allegedly injured when she was dragged by the cab after closing her coat in the door while exiting. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and we affirm.

In support of his motion for summary judgment, the defendant failed to demonstrate that under no view of the facts could he be found negligent in the happening of the accident (see generally Miller v Fernan, 73 NY2d 844, 846; Georges v Rajnarine, 277 AD2d 283, 284; Shahzaman v Green Bus Lines Co., 214 AD2d 722; Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 124 AD2d 106, affd 72 NY2d 888). Nor can it be determined, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff closing the door on her coat was an intervening act that was a superseding cause of her alleged injuries (see Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562; Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26, 33). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Altman, H. Miller and Cozier, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated December 19, 2001, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[510]*510The plaintiff was a passenger in a livery cab owned and operated by the defendant. She was allegedly injured when she was dragged by the cab after closing her coat in the door while exiting. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and we affirm.

In support of his motion for summary judgment, the defendant failed to demonstrate that under no view of the facts could he be found negligent in the happening of the accident (see generally Miller v Fernan, 73 NY2d 844, 846; Georges v Rajnarine, 277 AD2d 283, 284; Shahzaman v Green Bus Lines Co., 214 AD2d 722; Blye v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 124 AD2d 106, affd 72 NY2d 888). Nor can it be determined, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff closing the door on her coat was an intervening act that was a superseding cause of her alleged injuries (see Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562; Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26, 33). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Altman, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 509, 748 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-pina-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack