From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Knepka v. Tallman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 27, 2000.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, PINE, KEHOE AND BALIO, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court erred in resolving issues of credibility in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see, Mickelson v. Babcock, 190 A.D.2d 1037; see generally, Black v. Chittenden, 69 N.Y.2d 665, 669; Capelin Assocs. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 341). Any inconsistencies between the deposition testimony of plaintiffs and their affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion present credibility issues for trial ( see, Schoen v. Rochester Gas Elec., 242 A.D.2d 928; Mickelson v. Babcock, supra).


Summaries of

Knepka v. Tallman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Knepka v. Tallman

Case Details

Full title:ALICE KNEPKA AND JOHN KNEPKA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. TIMOTHY TALLMAN…

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

Date published: Dec 27, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 541

Citing Cases

Zeigler v. Quinones

The role of the court is to determine whether bona fide issues of fact exist, and not to resolve issues of…

Zbock v. Gietz

to the benefit of the emergency doctrine as a matter of law, inasmuch as his own submissions raise issues of…