Stevens v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stevens v. Parker

99 A.D.2d 649

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1984

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 649 (Stevens v. Parker) 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

Stevens v. Parker, 99 A.D.2d 649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

Order reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiff has sued defendant Hobson for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident in which it is claimed the defendant driver Parker was on Hobson’s business when the accident happened. Special Term has granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint against Hobson finding that, as a matter of law, a “master-servant relationship did not exist.” This was error. The rule is that issue finding, not issue determination, is the focus of the court’s concern when reviewing a motion for summary judgment (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404). Defendant Parker’s statement of April 20, 1978 raised triable issues of fact. All concur, except Boomer and Schnepp, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm, in the following memorandum.

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

Order reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiff has sued defendant Hobson for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident in which it is claimed the defendant driver Parker was on Hobson’s business when the accident happened. Special Term has granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint against Hobson finding that, as a matter of law, a “master-servant relationship did not exist.” This was error. The rule is that issue finding, not issue determination, is the focus of the court’s concern when reviewing a motion for summary judgment (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404). Defendant Parker’s statement of April 20, 1978 raised triable issues of fact. All concur, except Boomer and Schnepp, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm, in the following memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-parker-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack