Rosario v. Benmergui

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosario v. Benmergui

6 A.D.3d 311, 775 N.Y.S.2d 133, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4763

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

DecidedApril 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 311 (Rosario v. Benmergui) 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

Rosario v. Benmergui, 6 A.D.3d 311, 775 N.Y.S.2d 133, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered on or about October 31, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff in this negligence action was allegedly struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Diana Benmergui as he crossed the street. Inasmuch as the conflicting deposition testimony raises triable issues, among them whether the traffic signal was in plaintiffs or defendant’s favor as plaintiff crossed and defendant proceeded into the intersection, summary judgment on the issue of liability was properly denied (see Carrozzi v Gotham Meat Corp., 181 AD2d 587 [1992]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered on or about October 31, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff in this negligence action was allegedly struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Diana Benmergui as he crossed the street. Inasmuch as the conflicting deposition testimony raises triable issues, among them whether the traffic signal was in plaintiffs or defendant’s favor as plaintiff crossed and defendant proceeded into the intersection, summary judgment on the issue of liability was properly denied (see Carrozzi v Gotham Meat Corp., 181 AD2d 587 [1992]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 311, 775 N.Y.S.2d 133, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosario-v-benmergui-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack