From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Faulk v. Vital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 2005
16 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-02976.

March 21, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered March 3, 2004, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Before: H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, it failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant driver intentionally struck the injured plaintiff and whether he was a permissive operator of the vehicle ( see generally Purdie v. Ingram, 18 AD2d 667; cf. Beddingfield v. LaBarbera, 276 AD2d 575; Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arzillo, 98 AD2d 495).


Summaries of

Faulk v. Vital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 2005
16 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Faulk v. Vital

Case Details

Full title:PAUL FAULK et al., Respondents, v. BERNARD L. VITAL, Also Known as LOUIS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 21, 2005

Citations

16 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
790 N.Y.S.2d 880

Citing Cases

Gray v. Air Excel Serv. Corp.

"To establish liability pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1), the plaintiff must show negligence in…

Franchino v. Hertz Vehicle, LLC

The police reports, which in this case, recite that Wiley had an intent to evade arrest, are not dispositive…