State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Ovola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Ovola

209 A.D.2d 273, 619 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11304

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 273 (State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Ovola) 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

State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Ovola, 209 A.D.2d 273, 619 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 1, 1993, which granted third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the third-party [274]*274complaint, and which granted plaintiffs cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion and cross-motion denied, without costs.

Neither third-party defendant nor plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment here, where each failed in meeting the burden to establish the absence of material issues of fact (see, Gibson v American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 125 AD2d 65, 74; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). The record indicates that material issues of fact exist, such as whether the third-party defendant was responsible in any way for causing the collision or collisions, and precisely how and by whom the injuries to plaintiffs insured were caused and in what proportions, if determinable. Moreover, it was error to determine issues, on the motion and cross-motion, instead of merely identifying them (see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404). Concur—Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 1, 1993, which granted third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the third-party [274]*274complaint, and which granted plaintiffs cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion and cross-motion denied, without costs.

Neither third-party defendant nor plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment here, where each failed in meeting the burden to establish the absence of material issues of fact (see, Gibson v American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 125 AD2d 65, 74; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). The record indicates that material issues of fact exist, such as whether the third-party defendant was responsible in any way for causing the collision or collisions, and precisely how and by whom the injuries to plaintiffs insured were caused and in what proportions, if determinable. Moreover, it was error to determine issues, on the motion and cross-motion, instead of merely identifying them (see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404). Concur—Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 273, 619 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-automobile-insurance-v-ovola-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack