Trevino v. Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trevino v. Castro

256 A.D.2d 6, 680 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12782

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 6 (Trevino v. Castro) 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

Trevino v. Castro, 256 A.D.2d 6, 680 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered February 13, 1998, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants owner and driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger argue that the depositions show that the driver was confronted with an emergency situation when the car with which his car collided, which was traveling in the opposite direction, suddenly crossed over into his lane of traffic and into his immediate path, and that they are therefore entitled to summary judgment. The deposition testimony of [7]*7both plaintiff and the driver, to the effect that there had been an interval of several seconds between the cross-over and the collision, raises a triable issue as to whether the driver was confronted with an emergency, and, if not, whether he took reasonable steps to avoid the collision (see, Raposo v Raposo, 250 AD2d 420). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered February 13, 1998, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants owner and driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger argue that the depositions show that the driver was confronted with an emergency situation when the car with which his car collided, which was traveling in the opposite direction, suddenly crossed over into his lane of traffic and into his immediate path, and that they are therefore entitled to summary judgment. The deposition testimony of [7]*7both plaintiff and the driver, to the effect that there had been an interval of several seconds between the cross-over and the collision, raises a triable issue as to whether the driver was confronted with an emergency, and, if not, whether he took reasonable steps to avoid the collision (see, Raposo v Raposo, 250 AD2d 420). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 6, 680 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trevino-v-castro-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack