Quinones v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quinones v. Camacho

271 A.D.2d 249, 706 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3828

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

DecidedApril 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 249 (Quinones v. Camacho) 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

Quinones v. Camacho, 271 A.D.2d 249, 706 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about March 23, 1999, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to reargue defendants’ previously granted motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

No appeal lies from the denial of reargument. Were we to reach the merits, we would affirm. This action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs when the vehicle in which they were riding was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Camacho and leased by defendant Barco Leasing was properly dismissed. Defendant Camacho, a New Jersey resident, was not within the jurisdictional reach of New York’s long-arm statute (CPLR 302), and, given the applicability of New Jersey law to this action, which stems from events which occurred in New Jersey and concerns a vehicle leased, registered and insured in New Jersey (see, Reale v Herco, Inc., 183 AD2d 163), plaintiffs had no cause of action against defendant Barco. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about March 23, 1999, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to reargue defendants’ previously granted motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

No appeal lies from the denial of reargument. Were we to reach the merits, we would affirm. This action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs when the vehicle in which they were riding was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Camacho and leased by defendant Barco Leasing was properly dismissed. Defendant Camacho, a New Jersey resident, was not within the jurisdictional reach of New York’s long-arm statute (CPLR 302), and, given the applicability of New Jersey law to this action, which stems from events which occurred in New Jersey and concerns a vehicle leased, registered and insured in New Jersey (see, Reale v Herco, Inc., 183 AD2d 163), plaintiffs had no cause of action against defendant Barco. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 249, 706 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinones-v-camacho-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack