Sarwar v. Blackwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarwar v. Blackwell

285 A.D.2d 638, 728 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7706

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 30, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant James Blackwell, Jr., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated September 19, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against him on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by the appellant’s vehicle, and whether the appellant’s vehicle was propelled into the plaintiff’s vehicle by a third vehicle operated by the defendant Camille McLeod (see, Hudson v Cole, 264 AD2d 439; Gerbino v Hillel, 262 AD2d 528; cf., Cacace v DiStefano, 276 AD2d 457). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against the appellant on the issue of liability. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller 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 defendant James Blackwell, Jr., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated September 19, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against him on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by the appellant’s vehicle, and whether the appellant’s vehicle was propelled into the plaintiff’s vehicle by a third vehicle operated by the defendant Camille McLeod (see, Hudson v Cole, 264 AD2d 439; Gerbino v Hillel, 262 AD2d 528; cf., Cacace v DiStefano, 276 AD2d 457). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against the appellant on the issue of liability. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Sarwar v. Blackwell, 285 A.D.2d 638, 728 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

285 A.D.2d 638 (Sarwar v. Blackwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related