Parrinello v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parrinello v. Davis

2 A.D.3d 610, 768 N.Y.S.2d 348

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 610 (Parrinello v. Davis) 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

Parrinello v. Davis, 2 A.D.3d 610, 768 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Klein, J.), dated May 15, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

There is an issue of fact as to whether, by virtue of his “crossing a roadway at [a] point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152 [a]; see also Vehicle and Traffic § 110 [a], [b]), the injured plaintiff was negligent in a manner that contributed to the occurrence of the accident (see Dragunova v Dondero, 305 AD2d 449 [2003]; Ruocco v Mulhall, 281 AD2d [611]*611406 [2001]; Garner v Fox, 265 AD2d 525 [1999]; Shachnow v Myers, 229 AD2d 432 [1996]; Rodriguez v Robert, 47 AD2d 548 [1975]; Hogeboom v Protts, 30 AD2d 618 [1968]). The existence of this issue of fact precludes the grant of summary judgment on the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiffs (see e.g. Abramov v Campbell, 303 AD2d 697 [2003]; Bodner v Greenwald, 296 AD2d 564 [2002]; King v Washburn, 273 AD2d 725 [2000]). Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Townes, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Klein, J.), dated May 15, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

There is an issue of fact as to whether, by virtue of his “crossing a roadway at [a] point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152 [a]; see also Vehicle and Traffic § 110 [a], [b]), the injured plaintiff was negligent in a manner that contributed to the occurrence of the accident (see Dragunova v Dondero, 305 AD2d 449 [2003]; Ruocco v Mulhall, 281 AD2d [611]*611406 [2001]; Garner v Fox, 265 AD2d 525 [1999]; Shachnow v Myers, 229 AD2d 432 [1996]; Rodriguez v Robert, 47 AD2d 548 [1975]; Hogeboom v Protts, 30 AD2d 618 [1968]). The existence of this issue of fact precludes the grant of summary judgment on the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiffs (see e.g. Abramov v Campbell, 303 AD2d 697 [2003]; Bodner v Greenwald, 296 AD2d 564 [2002]; King v Washburn, 273 AD2d 725 [2000]). Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 610, 768 N.Y.S.2d 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrinello-v-davis-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack