Papadakis v. HM Kelly, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Papadakis v. HM Kelly, Inc.

97 A.D.3d 731, 947 N.Y.2d 902

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 18, 2012·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

[732]*732The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the location of their vehicle merely furnished the condition for the subject accident, and that the plaintiffs negligent operation of her vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Iqbal v Thai, 83 AD3d 897 [2011]; Hyland v Calace, 244 AD2d 318 [1997]; Lectora v Gundrum, 225 AD2d 738 [1996]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The Supreme Court therefore properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

[732]*732The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the location of their vehicle merely furnished the condition for the subject accident, and that the plaintiffs negligent operation of her vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Iqbal v Thai, 83 AD3d 897 [2011]; Hyland v Calace, 244 AD2d 318 [1997]; Lectora v Gundrum, 225 AD2d 738 [1996]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The Supreme Court therefore properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Papadakis v. HM Kelly, Inc., 97 A.D.3d 731, 947 N.Y.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

97 A.D.3d 731 (Papadakis v. HM Kelly, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related