Pfeiffer v. Hoye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pfeiffer v. Hoye

198 A.D.2d 405, 605 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10912

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 405 (Pfeiffer v. Hoye) 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

Pfeiffer v. Hoye, 198 A.D.2d 405, 605 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In three related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, which were to be jointly tried, William Hitter, a defendant in two of the actions, appeals for so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered November 1, 1991, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the contentions of the appellant, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that there were triable issues of fact as to the occurrence of the accident and whether the appellant was free from negligence (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223; Crowley v Acampora, 144 AD2d 330). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In three related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, which were to be jointly tried, William Hitter, a defendant in two of the actions, appeals for so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered November 1, 1991, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the contentions of the appellant, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that there were triable issues of fact as to the occurrence of the accident and whether the appellant was free from negligence (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223; Crowley v Acampora, 144 AD2d 330). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 405, 605 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pfeiffer-v-hoye-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack