Studnick v. Selesnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Studnick v. Selesnick

265 A.D.2d 321, 696 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9647

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 321 (Studnick v. Selesnick) 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

Studnick v. Selesnick, 265 A.D.2d 321, 696 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered September 30, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries which the injured plaintiff allegedly suffered when the defendant’s vehicle crossed over into the oncoming lane of traffic and struck her vehicle. The plaintiffs established a prima facie case that the defendant’s negligence caused the accident, thereby shifting the burden to the defendant to come forward with an exculpatory explanation for the collision (see, Siegel v Terrusa, 222 AD2d 428; Cummins v Rose, 185 AD2d 839; Morowitz v Naughton, 150 AD2d 536; Viegas v Esposito, 135 AD2d 708). Because the defendant failed to do so, the court properly granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on the issue of liability (see, Viegas v Esposito, supra; Siegel v Terrusa, supra; Cummins v Rose, supra; Morowitz v Naughton, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered September 30, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries which the injured plaintiff allegedly suffered when the defendant’s vehicle crossed over into the oncoming lane of traffic and struck her vehicle. The plaintiffs established a prima facie case that the defendant’s negligence caused the accident, thereby shifting the burden to the defendant to come forward with an exculpatory explanation for the collision (see, Siegel v Terrusa, 222 AD2d 428; Cummins v Rose, 185 AD2d 839; Morowitz v Naughton, 150 AD2d 536; Viegas v Esposito, 135 AD2d 708). Because the defendant failed to do so, the court properly granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on the issue of liability (see, Viegas v Esposito, supra; Siegel v Terrusa, supra; Cummins v Rose, supra; Morowitz v Naughton, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 321, 696 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/studnick-v-selesnick-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack