Brubaker, Jason a. v. Houseknecht, Marianne M., 83 A.D.3d 1539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Brubaker, Jason a. v. Houseknecht, Marianne M., 83 A.D.3d 1539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Bush v. Kovacevic (nyappdiv, 2016-06-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bush v. Kovacevic
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court erred in denying the motion with respect to the issues of defendant’s negligence and proximate cause, but properly denied the motion insofar as it implicitly sought dismissal of the first affirmative defense (see Brubaker v Houseknecht, 83 AD3d 1539, 1540 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bush v. Kovacevic
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court erred in denying the motion with respect to the issues of defendant’s negligence and proximate cause, but properly denied the motion insofar as it implicitly sought dismissal of the first affirmative defense (see Brubaker v Houseknecht, 83 AD3d 1539, 1540 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" T., JACOB A., MTR. OF
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
It is well settled that, when determining an appropriate disposition in a juvenile delinquency case involving acts that are not felonies, “the court shall order the least restrictive available alternative” and “shall consider the needs and best interests of the respondent as well as the need for protection of the community” (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]; see generally Matter of Leporia L.L., 83 AD3d 1539, 1539 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jason A. Brubaker, Appellant,
v.
Marianne M. Houseknecht, Respondent
CA 10-02378.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 29, 2011.
83 A.D.3d 1539
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered June 21, 2010 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the issue of comparative negligence.

[*1540] It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when the vehicle he was driving was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment determining that defendant was negligent and that plaintiff was free from comparative negligence. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Supreme Court properly granted the motion only with respect to the issue of defendant’s negligence. “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as we must . . . , we conclude that there are issues of fact that preclude summary judgment” with respect to the issue of plaintiff’s comparative negligence, i.e., whether plaintiffs own conduct or the alleged failure of his brake lights to function contributed to the accident (Russo v YMCA of Greater Buffalo, 12 AD3d 1089, 1089 [2004], lv dismissed 5 NY3d 746 [2005]; see Chilberg v Chilberg, 13 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2004]; see generally Ramadan v Maritato, 50 AD3d 1620 [2008]). Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Sconiers and Green, JJ.