Valore v. McIntosh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valore v. McIntosh

8 A.D.3d 662, 779 N.Y.S.2d 782, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9132

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 662 (Valore v. McIntosh) 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

Valore v. McIntosh, 8 A.D.3d 662, 779 N.Y.S.2d 782, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated September 10, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This case involves a motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 2, 2002, at the intersection of Old Town Road and Wilson Street in Staten Island. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in support of their motion did not establish as a matter of law that the injured plaintiff was free from comparative negligence (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736 [1993]; Romano v 202 Corp., 305 AD2d 576 [2003]; Eastmond v Wen Po Wong, 300 AD2d 344 [2002]; Millus v Milford, 289 AD2d 543 [2001]). The plaintiffs’ failure to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v [663]*663New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]), rendered the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers academic (see Lacagnino v Gonzalez, 306 AD2d 250 [2003]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Smith, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Skelos, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated September 10, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This case involves a motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 2, 2002, at the intersection of Old Town Road and Wilson Street in Staten Island. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in support of their motion did not establish as a matter of law that the injured plaintiff was free from comparative negligence (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736 [1993]; Romano v 202 Corp., 305 AD2d 576 [2003]; Eastmond v Wen Po Wong, 300 AD2d 344 [2002]; Millus v Milford, 289 AD2d 543 [2001]). The plaintiffs’ failure to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v [663]*663New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]), rendered the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers academic (see Lacagnino v Gonzalez, 306 AD2d 250 [2003]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Smith, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 662, 779 N.Y.S.2d 782, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valore-v-mcintosh-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack