Parisella v. Jack Haverty's Auto Parts, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parisella v. Jack Haverty's Auto Parts, Inc.

296 A.D.2d 539, 745 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7559

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

DecidedJuly 22, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 539 (Parisella v. Jack Haverty's Auto Parts, Inc.) 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

Parisella v. Jack Haverty's Auto Parts, Inc., 296 A.D.2d 539, 745 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 11, 2001, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion is granted.

In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Mehring v Cahill, 271 AD2d 415; Schmall v Ryder, 262 AD2d 476; Phelps v Legler, 262 AD2d 621; Goff v Goudreau, 222 AD2d 650), the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, by competent or expert medical evidence, as to its affirmative defense that Michael McGuinnis, driver of the vehicle owned by the defendant Jack Harvey’s Auto Parts, Inc., and decedent of the defendant administratrix Rita Brannen, sustained a sudden and unforeseen medical emergency (see Boesch v Nishball, 283 AD2d 534; Ficorilli v Thomsen, 262 AD2d 602; McGinn v New York City Tr. Auth., 240 AD2d 378). Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Mastro, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 11, 2001, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion is granted.

In opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Mehring v Cahill, 271 AD2d 415; Schmall v Ryder, 262 AD2d 476; Phelps v Legler, 262 AD2d 621; Goff v Goudreau, 222 AD2d 650), the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, by competent or expert medical evidence, as to its affirmative defense that Michael McGuinnis, driver of the vehicle owned by the defendant Jack Harvey’s Auto Parts, Inc., and decedent of the defendant administratrix Rita Brannen, sustained a sudden and unforeseen medical emergency (see Boesch v Nishball, 283 AD2d 534; Ficorilli v Thomsen, 262 AD2d 602; McGinn v New York City Tr. Auth., 240 AD2d 378). Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 539, 745 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parisella-v-jack-havertys-auto-parts-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack