Westphal v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Westphal v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

32 A.D.3d 429, 820 N.Y.S.2d 613

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

DecidedAugust 8, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 429 (Westphal v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.) 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

Westphal v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 32 A.D.3d 429, 820 N.Y.S.2d 613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), [430]*430dated June 15, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied, as academic, their cross motion for an open commission to take a nonparty deposition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff established a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defendants’ liability (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]). Any minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses were insufficient in this case to raise a bona fide issue as to their credibility (see Coughlin v Bartnick, 293 AD2d 509 [2002]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Covello, 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 wrongful death, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), [430]*430dated June 15, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied, as academic, their cross motion for an open commission to take a nonparty deposition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff established a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defendants’ liability (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]). Any minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses were insufficient in this case to raise a bona fide issue as to their credibility (see Coughlin v Bartnick, 293 AD2d 509 [2002]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 429, 820 N.Y.S.2d 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westphal-v-greyhound-lines-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack