Rogers v. Kellman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rogers v. Kellman

276 A.D.2d 415, 715 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10721

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

DecidedOctober 26, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 415 (Rogers v. Kellman) 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

Rogers v. Kellman, 276 A.D.2d 415, 715 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered January 6, 2000, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a passenger in a taxicab, was injured when the taxicab, while traveling westbound through an intersection against an apparently malfunctioning red light, was hit by a southbound car, whereupon it spun into the éastbound lane and collided with the vehicle owned and operated, respectively, by defendants-appellants. We affirm the denial of appellants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that issues of fact exist as to whether appellant driver moved his vehicle into the intersection prior to the collision; if so, whether he exercised due care in doing so; and, if not, whether such lack of due care contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. Any inconsistencies in the taxicab driver’s account of the accident are for the trier of fact to consider in assessing credibility. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered January 6, 2000, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a passenger in a taxicab, was injured when the taxicab, while traveling westbound through an intersection against an apparently malfunctioning red light, was hit by a southbound car, whereupon it spun into the éastbound lane and collided with the vehicle owned and operated, respectively, by defendants-appellants. We affirm the denial of appellants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that issues of fact exist as to whether appellant driver moved his vehicle into the intersection prior to the collision; if so, whether he exercised due care in doing so; and, if not, whether such lack of due care contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. Any inconsistencies in the taxicab driver’s account of the accident are for the trier of fact to consider in assessing credibility. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 415, 715 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-kellman-nyappdiv-2000.