Legal Opinion

Amico v. Vallarelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 26, 2010Published

1Opinion of the Court

The defendant established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, his expert’s report concluding that the defendant was not negligent. In response, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact. Accordingly, *888the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied (see Tapia v Royal Tours Serv., Inc., 67 AD3d 894 [2009]; Lopez v Reyes-Flores, 52 AD3d 785 [2008] ; Gomez v Hilfiger, 45 AD3d 728, 729 [2007]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; cf. Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356 [1997]).

The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Bolta v. LohanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  3. Lopez v. Reyes-FloresAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  4. Tapia v. Royal Tours Service, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  5. Gomez v. HilfigerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API