Powell v. Hanigsberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Powell v. Hanigsberg

6 A.D.3d 253, 774 N.Y.S.2d 699, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4569

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

DecidedApril 20, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 253 (Powell v. Hanigsberg) 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

Powell v. Hanigsberg, 6 A.D.3d 253, 774 N.Y.S.2d 699, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered March 26, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries caused by contact between plaintiff and defendant’s car, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ conflicting versions of the accident raise triable issues of fact, including whether, as plaintiff asserts, traffic cones had been placed in the street around the area where he was working on a construction site, and, if so, whether the point of contact was inside the cones; whether plaintiff was struck by the front of defendant’s car or stepped back into the side of the car; and, assuming plaintiff stepped back into the side of defendant’s car, whether defendant should have distanced himself from the work area, or was otherwise negligent under the circumstances (see Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 474, 475-476 [1979]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered March 26, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries caused by contact between plaintiff and defendant’s car, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties’ conflicting versions of the accident raise triable issues of fact, including whether, as plaintiff asserts, traffic cones had been placed in the street around the area where he was working on a construction site, and, if so, whether the point of contact was inside the cones; whether plaintiff was struck by the front of defendant’s car or stepped back into the side of the car; and, assuming plaintiff stepped back into the side of defendant’s car, whether defendant should have distanced himself from the work area, or was otherwise negligent under the circumstances (see Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 474, 475-476 [1979]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 253, 774 N.Y.S.2d 699, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-hanigsberg-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack