Tann v. Herlands

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tann v. Herlands

224 A.D.2d 230, 638 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 963

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 230 (Tann v. Herlands) 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

Tann v. Herlands, 224 A.D.2d 230, 638 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 963 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered March 27, 1995, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to defendants’ liability to the extent of finding defendant driver at least partially at fault in causing the accident, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion denied in its entirety, the matter remanded for further proceedings and the order otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As plaintiff concedes, the order granting him partial summary judgment was erroneous. Notwithstanding the fact that defendants’ vehicle struck plaintiff’s in a rear-end collision, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff s operation of his vehicle caused or contributed to the accident (see, Migdol v Striker, 215 AD2d 358). Additionally, defendants’ liability should be considered and determined simultaneously with the [231]*231material, and overlapping, issue of whether the plaintiff was also culpable (see, Enker v Slattery Constr. Co., 34 AD2d 673). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered March 27, 1995, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to defendants’ liability to the extent of finding defendant driver at least partially at fault in causing the accident, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion denied in its entirety, the matter remanded for further proceedings and the order otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As plaintiff concedes, the order granting him partial summary judgment was erroneous. Notwithstanding the fact that defendants’ vehicle struck plaintiff’s in a rear-end collision, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff s operation of his vehicle caused or contributed to the accident (see, Migdol v Striker, 215 AD2d 358). Additionally, defendants’ liability should be considered and determined simultaneously with the [231]*231material, and overlapping, issue of whether the plaintiff was also culpable (see, Enker v Slattery Constr. Co., 34 AD2d 673). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 230, 638 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tann-v-herlands-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack