Wolfe v. Seecomar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolfe v. Seecomar

226 A.D.2d 264, 641 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3989

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

DecidedApril 23, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 264 (Wolfe v. Seecomar) 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

Wolfe v. Seecomar, 226 A.D.2d 264, 641 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3989 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered on or about February 1, 1995, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, granted defendants-respondents’ motion [265]*265for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the five parking tickets produced by plaintiffs, which indicate that the van involved in the accident and owned by defendant’s employee had been parked next to or near restaurants some of which were defendants’ customers, once ten days before the accident and four times over a period extending six months after the accident, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the van was used to make deliveries for defendants. Such evidence does not directly contradict, and is too conjectural to otherwise put in issue, the sworn testimony of both defendants and their employees involved in the accident that the latter were warehouse personnel who did not make deliveries and that the van was never used to make deliveries (see, McElwain v Olashansky, 220 AD2d 394). We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered on or about February 1, 1995, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, granted defendants-respondents’ motion [265]*265for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the five parking tickets produced by plaintiffs, which indicate that the van involved in the accident and owned by defendant’s employee had been parked next to or near restaurants some of which were defendants’ customers, once ten days before the accident and four times over a period extending six months after the accident, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the van was used to make deliveries for defendants. Such evidence does not directly contradict, and is too conjectural to otherwise put in issue, the sworn testimony of both defendants and their employees involved in the accident that the latter were warehouse personnel who did not make deliveries and that the van was never used to make deliveries (see, McElwain v Olashansky, 220 AD2d 394). We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 264, 641 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfe-v-seecomar-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack