Velez v. Clemenza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Velez v. Clemenza

167 A.D.2d 391, 562 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13733

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 391 (Velez v. Clemenza) 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

Velez v. Clemenza, 167 A.D.2d 391, 562 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated October 6, 1989, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

[392]*392Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant was properly precluded from offering any evidence on the issue of liability at trial based on her failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s conditional order of preclusion (see, Kaire v Trump Mgt., 140 AD2d 494; Bernstein v Burson, 126 AD2d 593; Metflex Corp. v Klafter, 123 AD2d 845). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment on the issue of liability, upon the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of their entitlement thereto (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated October 6, 1989, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

[392]*392Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant was properly precluded from offering any evidence on the issue of liability at trial based on her failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s conditional order of preclusion (see, Kaire v Trump Mgt., 140 AD2d 494; Bernstein v Burson, 126 AD2d 593; Metflex Corp. v Klafter, 123 AD2d 845). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment on the issue of liability, upon the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of their entitlement thereto (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 391, 562 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velez-v-clemenza-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack