Vargas v. Olympic Limousine, Inc.
This text of 8 A.D.3d 663 (Vargas v. Olympic Limousine, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Olympic Limousine, Inc., and Ilya Trokelashvili appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated December 4, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.
The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendants Olympic Limousine, Inc. (hereinafter Olympic), and Ilya Trokelashvili for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. Triable issues of fact exist as to whether Trokelashvili’s driving of a motor vehicle owned by Olympic was a cause of the subject motor vehicle accident (see Morgan v Laurent, 3 AD3d 556 [2004]; Romano v 202 Corp., 305 AD2d 576 [2003]; Bodner v Greenwald, 296 AD2d 564 [2002]; Siegel v Sweeney, 266 AD2d 200, 202 [1999]; see also Hernandez v Bestway Beer & Soda Distrib., 301 AD2d 381 [2003]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 A.D.3d 663, 778 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vargas-v-olympic-limousine-inc-nyappdiv-2004.