Portela v. Sabatino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Portela v. Sabatino

10 A.D.3d 354, 780 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10136

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

DecidedAugust 2, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 354 (Portela v. Sabatino) 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

Portela v. Sabatino, 10 A.D.3d 354, 780 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J), dated February 4, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action arising from a collision at an intersection involving an automobile operated by the plaintiff Daniel H. Pórtela and a truck operated by the defendant Peter S. Sabatino and owned by the defendant Energy Conservation Group, LLC, the [355]*355Supreme Court correctly concluded that questions of fact exist as to liability, and thus, properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on that issue (see Romano v 202 Corp., 305 AD2d 576 [2003]; Bodner v Greenwald, 296 AD2d 564 [2002]). Luciano, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Skelos, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J), dated February 4, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action arising from a collision at an intersection involving an automobile operated by the plaintiff Daniel H. Pórtela and a truck operated by the defendant Peter S. Sabatino and owned by the defendant Energy Conservation Group, LLC, the [355]*355Supreme Court correctly concluded that questions of fact exist as to liability, and thus, properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on that issue (see Romano v 202 Corp., 305 AD2d 576 [2003]; Bodner v Greenwald, 296 AD2d 564 [2002]). Luciano, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 354, 780 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portela-v-sabatino-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack