From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hudson v. Cole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 16, 1999
264 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

August 16, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Emilio, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The appellant failed to demonstrate her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see, Sanford v. Stillitano, 241 A.D.2d 489). There was conflicting evidence as to how the instant three-vehicle, rear-end, chain-reaction collision occurred, including evidence suggesting that there were multiple impacts. Accordingly, the court correctly denied the appellant's motion ( see, Sanford v. Stillitano, supra; Omrami v. Socrates, 227 A.D.2d 459; Cofrancesco v. Murino, 225 A.D.2d 648).

S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hudson v. Cole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 16, 1999
264 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Hudson v. Cole

Case Details

Full title:FLORENCE HUDSON, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY E. COLE, Respondent, MARIA…

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

Date published: Aug 16, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
694 N.Y.S.2d 692

Citing Cases

Wysocka v. Neglia

When evidence suggests that multiple impacts occurred, a triable issue of fact exists as to which vehicle was…

Williams v. Annee

Moreover, summary judgment is inappropriate when there is conflicting evidence as to how a multi-vehicle…