Rivera v. Hickey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Hickey

283 A.D.2d 415, 723 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4770

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 415 (Rivera v. Hickey) 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

Rivera v. Hickey, 283 A.D.2d 415, 723 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated April 18, 2000, which denied his motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability, since he failed to make a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff was allegedly injured while riding his bicycle when he was hit by a vehicle driven by the defendant Robert J. Hickey. The parties presented conflicting evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the accident, including whether the accident occurred before or after a yield sign (see, Mundo v City of Yonkers, 249 AD2d 522; Trent v Town of Riverhead, 247 AD2d 606).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated April 18, 2000, which denied his motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability, since he failed to make a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff was allegedly injured while riding his bicycle when he was hit by a vehicle driven by the defendant Robert J. Hickey. The parties presented conflicting evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the accident, including whether the accident occurred before or after a yield sign (see, Mundo v City of Yonkers, 249 AD2d 522; Trent v Town of Riverhead, 247 AD2d 606).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 415, 723 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-hickey-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack