WAJDY K. BZEZI, ap, v. REHAB AHMED ELDIB, ET AL., def, MARY GORI, res

WAJDY K. BZEZI, ap, v. REHAB AHMED ELDIB, ET AL., def, MARY GORI, res — (APPEAL NO. 1) WAJDY K. BZEZI, plf, v. REHAB AHMED ELDIB, ET AL., ap, MARY GORI, res — (APPEAL NO. 2) (INDEX NO. 38472/07)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), entered March 9, 2012, as, upon the granting of that branch of the motion of the defendant Mary Gori pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of evidence, which was for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her, is in favor of the defendant Mary Gori and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant, and the defendants Rehab Ahmed Eldib and Mohamed Ghazy separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same judgment as, upon a sua sponte finding that they were 100 percent at fault in the happening of the accident and the granting of that branch of the motion of the defendant Mary Gori pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of evidence, which was for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cross claims asserted by them against the defendant Mary Gori, is in favor of that defendant and against them dismissing the cross claims that they asserted against the defendant Mary Gori.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

WAJDY K. BZEZI, ap, v. REHAB AHMED ELDIB, ET AL., def, MARY GORI, res — (APPEAL NO. 1) WAJDY K. BZEZI, plf, v. REHAB AHMED ELDIB, ET AL., ap, MARY GORI, res — (APPEAL NO. 2) (INDEX NO. 38472/07)In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), entered March 9, 2012, as, upon the granting of that branch of the motion of the defendant Mary Gori pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of evidence, which was for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her, is in favor of the defendant Mary Gori and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant, and the defendants Rehab Ahmed Eldib and Mohamed Ghazy separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same judgment as, upon a sua sponte finding that they were 100 percent at fault in the happening of the accident and the granting of that branch of the motion of the defendant Mary Gori pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of evidence, which was for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cross claims asserted by them against the defendant Mary Gori, is in favor of that defendant and against them dismissing the cross claims that they asserted against the defendant Mary Gori.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion of the defendant Mary Gori pursuant to CPLR 4401 is denied, the complaint and the cross claims against the defendant Mary Gori are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial on the issue of liability, and a trial on the issue of damages, if warranted.

WAJDY K. BZEZI, ap, v. REHAB AHMED ELDIB, ET AL., def, MARY GORI, res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal