Stark v. Triangle Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stark v. Triangle Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

248 A.D.2d 283, 670 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3216

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 283 (Stark v. Triangle Car & Limousine Service, Inc.) 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

Stark v. Triangle Car & Limousine Service, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 283, 670 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered April 8, 1997, which, as limited by defendants’ brief, denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied, there being issues of fact as to which defendant was the driver’s actual employer, the full amount of applicable insurance coverage in effect at the time of the accident, and whether plaintiff was induced by false statements concerning the available insurance coverage to sign a general release settling his claim against the driver and the [284]*284car’s registered owner. We have considered defendants’ other arguments, including that plaintiff is impermissibly splitting his cause of actions, and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered April 8, 1997, which, as limited by defendants’ brief, denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied, there being issues of fact as to which defendant was the driver’s actual employer, the full amount of applicable insurance coverage in effect at the time of the accident, and whether plaintiff was induced by false statements concerning the available insurance coverage to sign a general release settling his claim against the driver and the [284]*284car’s registered owner. We have considered defendants’ other arguments, including that plaintiff is impermissibly splitting his cause of actions, and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 283, 670 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stark-v-triangle-car-limousine-service-inc-nyappdiv-1998.