Warmus v. Sutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warmus v. Sutton

73 A.D.3d 1460, 899 N.Y.S.2d 715

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

DecidedMay 7, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 1460 (Warmus v. Sutton) 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

Warmus v. Sutton, 73 A.D.3d 1460, 899 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered September 2, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted in its entirety.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when a tractor-trailer owned by defendant Releo Systems, Inc. and operated by defendant Larry E. Sutton struck a motorcycle on which plaintiff was a passenger. Supreme Court granted those parts of plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment on the issue of negligence and dismissing the first affirmative defense. Plaintiff appeals from the order insofar as it denied that part of her motion seeking summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause, and we reverse. Plaintiff met her initial burden with respect thereto, and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Fahey, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered September 2, 2009 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted in its entirety.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when a tractor-trailer owned by defendant Releo Systems, Inc. and operated by defendant Larry E. Sutton struck a motorcycle on which plaintiff was a passenger. Supreme Court granted those parts of plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment on the issue of negligence and dismissing the first affirmative defense. Plaintiff appeals from the order insofar as it denied that part of her motion seeking summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause, and we reverse. Plaintiff met her initial burden with respect thereto, and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Fahey, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 1460, 899 N.Y.S.2d 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warmus-v-sutton-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack