Vento v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vento v. City of New York

262 A.D.2d 309, 689 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5896

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 309 (Vento v. City of New York) 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

Vento v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 309, 689 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Joseph T. Gural and Iris Gural appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated March 12, 1998, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as as[310]*310serted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The court erred when it denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment. The record is devoid of any proof that they were in any way responsible for the accident. A plaintiff cannot make belated assertions raising feigned issues in an attempt to avoid the consequences of dismissal (see, Fontana v Fortunoff, 246 AD2d 626; Miller v City of New York, 214 AD2d 657; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388). Friedmann, J. P., Krausman, Mc-Ginity and Feuerstein, 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, the defendants Joseph T. Gural and Iris Gural appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated March 12, 1998, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as as[310]*310serted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The court erred when it denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment. The record is devoid of any proof that they were in any way responsible for the accident. A plaintiff cannot make belated assertions raising feigned issues in an attempt to avoid the consequences of dismissal (see, Fontana v Fortunoff, 246 AD2d 626; Miller v City of New York, 214 AD2d 657; Garvin v Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388). Friedmann, J. P., Krausman, Mc-Ginity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 309, 689 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vento-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack