Legal Opinion

Morgan v. Candia

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

Decided January 21, 2010Published

1Opinion of the Court

The court properly accepted plaintiffs untimely papers in opposition to defendants’ motion, as defendants did not suffer any prejudice (see Matter of Jordan v City of New York, 38 AD3d 336, 338 [2007]; Dinnocenzo v Jordache Enters., 213 AD2d 219 [1995]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and allowing for the circumstance that he was unable to provide an explanation for the rear-collision accident, we find that plaintiff has not shown facts and conditions from which it may reasonably be inferred that defendants bore any fault for the accident (see Morales v Morales,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Jordan v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
  2. Dinnocenzo v. Jordache Enterprises, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  3. Morales v. MoralesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  4. Black v. LoomisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  5. Somers v. CondlinAppellate 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