Case Name: Hossam Ismail et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dial Exterminating Corp. et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 1.); Guillermo Villada et al., Respondents, v. City of New York et al., Respondents, and Ronald Eastman, Appellant; Mansour Albelazim et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Nelson Valencia et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1993-12-28
Citations: 199 A.D.2d 201
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hossam Ismail et al., Plaintiffs, v Dial Exterminating Corp. et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Guillermo Villada et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Respondents, and Ronald Eastman, Appellant. Mansour Albelazim et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v Nelson Valencia et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 199
Pages: 201–201

Head Matter:
Hossam Ismail et al., Plaintiffs, v Dial Exterminating Corp. et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Guillermo Villada et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Respondents, and Ronald Eastman, Appellant. Mansour Albelazim et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v Nelson Valencia et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
[608 NYS2d 61]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered August 14, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We find a triable issue of fact as to whether appellant's vehicle made impact with plaintiff's van, precluding summary judgment in this negligence action (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364-365), and note that neither side submitted admissible documentary evidence in support of their respective positions (see, Canty v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 158 AD2d 271, 272 [police report]; Rue v Stokes, 191 AD2d 245 [MV-104]). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.