Stanfield v. O & B Hacking Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanfield v. O & B Hacking Corp.

124 A.D.3d 869, 998 N.Y.S.2d 904

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 28, 2015·No. 2014-03232·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered June 26, 2013, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, including her freedom from comparative fault (see Kusz v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 AD3d 768 [2011]; Martinez v Kreychmar, 84 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2011]; Rosenblatt v Venizelos, 49 AD3d 519, 520 [2008]). However, in opposition thereto, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact, inter alia, as to how the subject accident occurred (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Battles v City of New York, 118 AD3d 650 [2014]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Cohen, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered June 26, 2013, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, including her freedom from comparative fault (see Kusz v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 AD3d 768 [2011]; Martinez v Kreychmar, 84 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2011]; Rosenblatt v Venizelos, 49 AD3d 519, 520 [2008]). However, in opposition thereto, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact, inter alia, as to how the subject accident occurred (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Battles v City of New York, 118 AD3d 650 [2014]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Stanfield v. O & B Hacking Corp., 124 A.D.3d 869, 998 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

124 A.D.3d 869 (Stanfield v. O & B Hacking Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related