Willis v. Fink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Willis v. Fink

7 A.D.3d 519, 775 N.Y.S.2d 587

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

DecidedMay 3, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 519 (Willis v. Fink) 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

Willis v. Fink, 7 A.D.3d 519, 775 N.Y.S.2d 587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated June 13,-2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

[520]*520Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that the defendant, who either failed to stop at a stop sign or, upon stopping, failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiffs’ vehicle, was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142; Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]; McClelland v Seery, 261 AD2d 451 [1999]; Gravina v Wakschal, 255 AD2d 291 [1998]; Maxwell v Land-Saunders, 233 AD2d 303 [1996]). In opposition, the defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Lupowitz v Fogarty, 295 AD2d 576 [2002]; Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated June 13,-2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

[520]*520Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that the defendant, who either failed to stop at a stop sign or, upon stopping, failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiffs’ vehicle, was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142; Szczotka v Adler, 291 AD2d 444 [2002]; McClelland v Seery, 261 AD2d 451 [1999]; Gravina v Wakschal, 255 AD2d 291 [1998]; Maxwell v Land-Saunders, 233 AD2d 303 [1996]). In opposition, the defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Lupowitz v Fogarty, 295 AD2d 576 [2002]; Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 519, 775 N.Y.S.2d 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-fink-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack