Opinion

Karram v. Cirillo

2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2823 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 21, 2001

Full text

Fred J. Karram, Jr. v. Paul F. Cirillo

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The submissions of defendant in support of the motion raise triable issues of fact whether he activated his turn signal and whether he came to an abrupt stop without warning prior to the accident (see, Weber v Chapman, 238 AD2d 946; Silvestro v Wartella, 224 AD2d 799; Thorndike v Coombes, 63 AD2d 843, 845). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Kehoe, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 6202883

Citations

2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2823
281 A.D.2d 946
722 N.Y.S.2d 673

Cited by

Graczyk v. Allen
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Jun 30, 2023
Haust v. United States
N.D. New York · Jul 17, 2013
Gawera v. Scrogg
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Feb 11, 2004
Bixler v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Oct 2, 2003

Parentheticals

affirming denial of summary judgment when defendant’s submissions raised issues of material fact as to “whether he activated his turn signal and whether he came to an abrupt stop without warning prior to the accident”
Haust v. United States