Vargas v. Schiavitti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vargas v. Schiavitti

263 A.D.2d 480, 691 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7875

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D.2d 480 (Vargas v. Schiavitti) 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

Vargas v. Schiavitti, 263 A.D.2d 480, 691 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for [481]*481personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated June 10, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendant, as the proponent of a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, had the initial burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). This burden was not met. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, 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 [481]*481personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated June 10, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendant, as the proponent of a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, had the initial burden of demonstrating a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). This burden was not met. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 480, 691 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vargas-v-schiavitti-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack