Young v. Mauch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Young v. Mauch

268 A.D.2d 583, 702 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 952

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 583 (Young v. Mauch) 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

Young v. Mauch, 268 A.D.2d 583, 702 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), dated May 24, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There are triable issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Those issues include whether the operator of the vehicle owned by the defendant Michael Mauch was negligent in making a left turn despite the approach of the vehicle operated by the plaintiff Gary Young, whether Young was negligent in failing to use appropriate caution in the operation of his vehicle, and the allocation of fault, if any, on the part of each driver (see generally, Bogorad v Fitzpatrick, 38 AD2d 923, affd 31 NY2d 984; cf., Burns v Mastroianni, 173 AD2d 754). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, 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 personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), dated May 24, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There are triable issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Those issues include whether the operator of the vehicle owned by the defendant Michael Mauch was negligent in making a left turn despite the approach of the vehicle operated by the plaintiff Gary Young, whether Young was negligent in failing to use appropriate caution in the operation of his vehicle, and the allocation of fault, if any, on the part of each driver (see generally, Bogorad v Fitzpatrick, 38 AD2d 923, affd 31 NY2d 984; cf., Burns v Mastroianni, 173 AD2d 754). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 583, 702 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-mauch-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack