Rivera v. Paz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Paz

250 A.D.2d 534, 672 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5933

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 534 (Rivera v. Paz) 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. Paz, 250 A.D.2d 534, 672 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about December 18, 1997, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs. .

Considering all of the factors pertinent to the question of whether defendant-appellant had a reasonable opportunity under the circumstances to avoid the subject accident (see, Carson v De Lorenzo, 238 AD2d 790, lv denied 90 NY2d 810), we agree with the motion court that appellant’s testimony does no more than raise a jury question as to whether appellant was in fact confronted with an emergency situation (see, e.g., Williams v Doran, 240 AD2d 349). Appellant did not present clear and unrefuted evidence that plaintiff driver was exclusively at fault for the accident (cf., Ruotolo v Ambu-Wagon, Inc., 206 AD2d 416). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about December 18, 1997, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs. .

Considering all of the factors pertinent to the question of whether defendant-appellant had a reasonable opportunity under the circumstances to avoid the subject accident (see, Carson v De Lorenzo, 238 AD2d 790, lv denied 90 NY2d 810), we agree with the motion court that appellant’s testimony does no more than raise a jury question as to whether appellant was in fact confronted with an emergency situation (see, e.g., Williams v Doran, 240 AD2d 349). Appellant did not present clear and unrefuted evidence that plaintiff driver was exclusively at fault for the accident (cf., Ruotolo v Ambu-Wagon, Inc., 206 AD2d 416). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 534, 672 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-paz-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack