Kolivas v. KirchoffKolivas v. Kirchoff
Versions:
Murphy throught the logic:
1. **Analyze the Request:** The user wants me to convert a specific legal document (provided as an image and OCR text) into a clean, semantic HTML format.
2. **Examine the Input:**
* The document is page 493 of a reporter (likely NY AD3d).
* It contains the end of one case (mentions *Scoma v Doe*, *Fountain v Ocean View II Assoc.*, *Reid v Niagara Mach. & Tool Co.*).
* It contains the full text of a second case: *Lemonia Kolivas v Maureen D. Kirchoff et al.*
* It starts a third case: *Vinod Kumar et al. v Yonkers Contracting Company, Inc., et al.*
* **Rule Check (Multi-Opinion Documents):** “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
* The main opinion here is *Lemonia Kolivas v Maureen D. Kirchoff et al.*
3. **Extract Case Metadata (Kolivas v Kirchoff):**
* **Case Name:** Lemonia Kolivas, Respondent, v Maureen D. Kirchoff et al., Appellants, and Emmanuel Giakoumis, Respondent.
* **Short Name:** *Kolivas v. Kirchoff*
* **Docket:** Not explicitly given, but the date is July 7, 2003 (for the underlying order). The appellate decision date isn‘t explicitly on this page, but the reporter citation is provided.
* **Court:** Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York (inferred from names like Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ. and the NY citation style).
* **Date:** Not explicitly stated for the appellate order on this page, but usually these pages have it. However, I must only use what is provided. The OCR/image doesn‘t show the decision date, just the date of the order appealed from (July 7, 2003). Wait, let me look closer. The reporter citation [787 NYS2d 392] is there.
* **Citation:** 787 NYS2d 392 (Wait, actually, looking at the top right, it‘s page 493. Usually, this would be something like 8 AD3d 493).
4. **Formatting the Case Information Details:**
* `
LEMONIA KOLIVAS, Respondent, v MAUREEN D. KIRCHOFF et al., Appellants, and EMMANUEL GIAKOUMIS, Respondent.
` * `Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
` (Standard Bluebook for AD is `N.Y. App. Div.`) * `[787 NYS2d 392]
` * `Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
` 5. **Opinion Body Content:** * “In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Maureen D. Kirchoff and Francis A. Kirchoff appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated July 7, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.” * “Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.” * “Summary judgment is a drastic remedy that deprives a litigant of his or her day in court, and it ‘should only be employed when there is no doubt as to the absence of triable issues’ (Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974]). The function of the court on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve issues of fact or determine matters of credibility, but merely to determine whether such issues exist (see Scott v Long Is. Power Auth., 294 AD2d 348 [2002]; Anyanwu v Johnson, 276 AD2d 572 [2000]; Omrami v Socrates, 227 AD2d 459 [1996]; Rebecchi v Whitmore, 172 AD2d 600 [1991]). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendants Maureen D. Kirchoff and Francis A. Kirchoff because the conflicting deposition testimony regarding the facts surrounding the accident raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant Maureen D. Kirchoff contributed to the accident. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.” 6. **Pagination:** * The page starts with 493. * The text of the previous case ends on 493. * The Kolivas case starts on 493. * So `