Palakawong v. Lalli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palakawong v. Lalli

88 A.D.3d 541, 930 N.Y.2d 588

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 18, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[542] The Lallis may rely on evidence other than Perez’s motorcycle to prove that they did not cause the motor vehicle accident, including the police accident report and their insurer’s inspections of other vehicles involved in the accident. Thus, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that part of the Lallis’ motion seeking to dismiss Perez’s action (see Tommy Hilfiger, USA v Commonwealth Trucking, 300 AD2d 58, 60 [2002]). However, a lesser sanction is warranted given Perez’s intentional alteration of his motorcycle (see Kugel v City of New York, 60 AD3d 403 [2009]; Rodriguez v 551 Realty LLC, 35 AD3d 221 [2006]). Concur — Saxe, J.P, Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

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

[542] The Lallis may rely on evidence other than Perez’s motorcycle to prove that they did not cause the motor vehicle accident, including the police accident report and their insurer’s inspections of other vehicles involved in the accident. Thus, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that part of the Lallis’ motion seeking to dismiss Perez’s action (see Tommy Hilfiger, USA v Commonwealth Trucking, 300 AD2d 58, 60 [2002]). However, a lesser sanction is warranted given Perez’s intentional alteration of his motorcycle (see Kugel v City of New York, 60 AD3d 403 [2009]; Rodriguez v 551 Realty LLC, 35 AD3d 221 [2006]). Concur — Saxe, J.P, Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Palakawong v. Lalli, 88 A.D.3d 541, 930 N.Y.2d 588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

88 A.D.3d 541 (Palakawong v. Lalli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related