Case Name: Mary Amico, Respondent, v. Victor Vallarelli, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2010-01-26
Citations: 69 A.D.3d 887
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Amico, Respondent, v Victor Vallarelli, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
(January 26, 2010)
Mary Amico, Respondent, v Victor Vallarelli, Appellant.
[892 NYS2d 798]

Opinion:
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, the 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 defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.E, Dickerson, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.