Wallace v. Dubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wallace v. Dubin

20 A.D.3d 412, 798 N.Y.S.2d 506, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7557

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

DecidedJuly 5, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 20 A.D.3d 412 (Wallace v. Dubin) 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

Wallace v. Dubin, 20 A.D.3d 412, 798 N.Y.S.2d 506, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (O. Bellantoni, J.), entered June 28, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The evidence failed to establish . the absence of a triable issue of fact (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]). Although the submissions on the motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the defendant driver was negligent in failing to yield the right of way, the plaintiff’s concession that he did not know the speed at which he was operating his motorcycle and did not recall seeing the other vehicle, together with the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, raised questions of fact as to his freedom from negligence (see id.; Eastmond v Wen Po Wong, 300 AD2d 344 [2002]). H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Crane 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (O. Bellantoni, J.), entered June 28, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The evidence failed to establish . the absence of a triable issue of fact (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]). Although the submissions on the motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the defendant driver was negligent in failing to yield the right of way, the plaintiff’s concession that he did not know the speed at which he was operating his motorcycle and did not recall seeing the other vehicle, together with the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion, raised questions of fact as to his freedom from negligence (see id.; Eastmond v Wen Po Wong, 300 AD2d 344 [2002]). H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.3d 412, 798 N.Y.S.2d 506, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-dubin-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack