Saunders v. Locorotondo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saunders v. Locorotondo

288 A.D.2d 74, 733 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10982

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 74 (Saunders v. Locorotondo) 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

Saunders v. Locorotondo, 288 A.D.2d 74, 733 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered on or about February 1, 2001, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since defendant provided an explanation not involving negligence on his part as to how his car came to strike plaintiff’s vehicle from behind, the motion court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (cf, Shelton v Rivera, 286 AD2d 587). In addition, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the evidence on the motion did not warrant the motion court finding, as a matter of law, that defendant, just prior to the accident, had been following plaintiff’s vehicle too closely. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered on or about February 1, 2001, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since defendant provided an explanation not involving negligence on his part as to how his car came to strike plaintiff’s vehicle from behind, the motion court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (cf, Shelton v Rivera, 286 AD2d 587). In addition, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the evidence on the motion did not warrant the motion court finding, as a matter of law, that defendant, just prior to the accident, had been following plaintiff’s vehicle too closely. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 74, 733 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-locorotondo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack