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

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

DecidedJuly 30, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 638 (Sarwar v. Blackwell) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 638, 728 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarwar-v-blackwell-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack