Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Bodner v. Greenwald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 29, 2002

296 A.D.2d 564; 745 N.Y.S.2d 711; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7724

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Cox v. Nunez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Kaplan v. Vanderhans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Romano v. 202 Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Gardner v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Yelder v. Walters (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Tapia v. Royal Tours Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Borukhow v. Cuff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Lara v. Simmons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Campbell-Lopez v. Cruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Paljevic v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Vargas v. Olympic Limousine, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Larsen v. Spano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Portela v. Sabatino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Parrinello v. Davis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Abramov v. Campbell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated September 25, 2001, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established that the defendant failed to yield the right of way to the motor vehicle operated by the injured plaintiff, and made out a prima facie case that the accident resulted from the defendant’s negligence (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]; Maxwell v Land-Saunders, 233 AD2d 303). *565However, in opposition, the defendant raised issues of fact as to the injured plaintiff’s comparative negligence (see King v Washburn, 273 AD2d 725; Patti v Fenimore, 181 AD2d 869; cf. McClelland v Seery, 261 AD2d 451; Gravina v Wakschal, 255 AD2d 291; Snow v Howe, 253 AD2d 870). Therefore, the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.