Weeks v. Mackey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weeks v. Mackey

261 A.D.2d 536, 688 N.Y.S.2d 908

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

DecidedMay 17, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 536 (Weeks v. Mackey) 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

Weeks v. Mackey, 261 A.D.2d 536, 688 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Elrac, Inc., and Flor Picado appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated August 28, 1997, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaints and any cross claims insofar as asserted against them in Action Nos. 2, 3, and 4.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Material issues of fact exist as to whether the appellants’ illegally-parked car was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries sustained as a result of a multi-vehicle accident on the New York State Thruway (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Ferguson v Gassman, 229 AD2d 464, 465; Sullivan v Locastro, 178 AD2d 523, 525). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Elrac, Inc., and Flor Picado appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated August 28, 1997, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaints and any cross claims insofar as asserted against them in Action Nos. 2, 3, and 4.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Material issues of fact exist as to whether the appellants’ illegally-parked car was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries sustained as a result of a multi-vehicle accident on the New York State Thruway (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Ferguson v Gassman, 229 AD2d 464, 465; Sullivan v Locastro, 178 AD2d 523, 525). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 536, 688 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weeks-v-mackey-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack