PALAKAWONG v. LALLI, 88 A.D.3d 541 (2011)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20111018259
Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 18, 2011
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2011
Summary: The Lallis may rely on evidence other than Perez's motorcycle to prove that they did not cause the motor vehicle accident, including the police accident report and their insurer's inspections of other vehicles involved in the accident. Thus, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that part of the Lallis' motion seeking to dismiss Perez's action ( see Tommy Hilfiger, USA v Commonwealth Trucking, 300 A.D.2d 58 , 60 [2002]). However, a lesser sanction is warranted given Per
Summary: The Lallis may rely on evidence other than Perez's motorcycle to prove that they did not cause the motor vehicle accident, including the police accident report and their insurer's inspections of other vehicles involved in the accident. Thus, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that part of the Lallis' motion seeking to dismiss Perez's action ( see Tommy Hilfiger, USA v Commonwealth Trucking, 300 A.D.2d 58 , 60 [2002]). However, a lesser sanction is warranted given Pere..
More
The Lallis may rely on evidence other than Perez's motorcycle to prove that they did not cause the motor vehicle accident, including the police accident report and their insurer's inspections of other vehicles involved in the accident. Thus, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that part of the Lallis' motion seeking to dismiss Perez's action (see Tommy Hilfiger, USA v Commonwealth Trucking, 300 A.D.2d 58, 60 [2002]). However, a lesser sanction is warranted given Perez's intentional alteration of his motorcycle (see Kugel v City of New York, 60 A.D.3d 403 [2009]; Rodriguez v 551 Realty LLC, 35 A.D.3d 221 [2006]).
Source: Leagle
