Smith v. Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Weinstein

236 A.D.2d 461, 655 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1219

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 461 (Smith v. Weinstein) 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

Smith v. Weinstein, 236 A.D.2d 461, 655 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated February 15, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendants’ cross motion for leave to amend their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

At an examination before trial, the plaintiff Edward Smith testified that when the subject motor vehicle accident occurred, his left eye struck the vehicle’s steering wheel. This evidence raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the defendant Jamie Ann Weinstein was in fact operating the vehicle at the time of the occurrence, as the plaintiffs contended in their complaint and bill of particulars.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants’ cross motion for leave to amend their answer (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Zacher v Oakdale Islandia Ltd. Partnership, 211 AD2d 712). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated February 15, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendants’ cross motion for leave to amend their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

At an examination before trial, the plaintiff Edward Smith testified that when the subject motor vehicle accident occurred, his left eye struck the vehicle’s steering wheel. This evidence raised a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the defendant Jamie Ann Weinstein was in fact operating the vehicle at the time of the occurrence, as the plaintiffs contended in their complaint and bill of particulars.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants’ cross motion for leave to amend their answer (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Zacher v Oakdale Islandia Ltd. Partnership, 211 AD2d 712). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 461, 655 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-weinstein-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack