Case Name: Paul Faulk et al., Respondents, v. Bernard L. Vital, Also Known as Louis B. Vital, Defendant, and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2005-03-21
Citations: 16 A.D.3d 544
Docket Number: 
Parties: Paul Faulk et al., Respondents, v Bernard L. Vital, Also Known as Louis B. Vital, Defendant, and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 544–544

Head Matter:
Paul Faulk et al., Respondents, v Bernard L. Vital, Also Known as Louis B. Vital, Defendant, and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, Appellant.
[790 NYS2d 880]

Opinion:
— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro," J.), entered March 3, 2004, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, it failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant driver intentionally struck the injured plaintiff and whether he was a permissive operator of the vehicle (see generally Purdie v Ingram, 18 AD2d 667 [1962]; cf. Beddingfield v LaBarbera, 276 AD2d 575 [2000]; Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Arzillo, 98 AD2d 495 [1984]). H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.