Blair v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 11 January 2017 |
| Parties | James BLAIR, respondent, v. Deona COLEMAN, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
146 A.D.3d 743
44 N.Y.S.3d 538
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00143
James BLAIR, respondent,
v.
Deona COLEMAN, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 11, 2017.
Lawrence Heisler, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), for appellants.
Greg Garber, New York, N.Y. (Eduard Tamma of counsel), for respondent.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, BETSY BARROS, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered May 4, 2016, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On October 3, 2014, at the intersection of Hillside Avenue and Merrick Boulevard in Queens County, a bus owned by the defendants New York City Transit Authority and MTA Bus Company, which was operated by the defendant Deona Coleman, collided with a vehicle operated by the plaintiff. At the time of the collision, the defendants' bus was in the process of
making a left turn from Hillside Avenue onto Merrick Boulevard from a left turn only lane, and the plaintiff was going straight in the opposite direction on Hillside Avenue. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied that branch of the defendants' motion.
A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident (see Estate of Cook v. Gomez, 138 A.D.3d 675, 676, 30 N.Y.S.3d 148 ; Fitzsimmons v. Long, 136 A.D.3d 738,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivera v. Town of Wappinger
...A.D.3d at 1023, 13 N.Y.S.3d 141 ; see also Mark v. New York City Tr. Auth., 150 A.D.3d 980, 981–982, 55 N.Y.S.3d 128 ; Blair v. Coleman, 146 A.D.3d 743, 744, 44 N.Y.S.3d 538 ). The driver defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether Ayers contributed to the happening ......
-
Colon v. Linchip Logistics LLC, 16-CV-3875 (NGG) (RML)
...at 4; Pl. Mem. at 12.) See Mark v. New York City Transit Auth., 55 N.Y.S.3d 128, 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017) (citing Blair v. Coleman, 44 N.Y.S.3d 538, 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017); Twizer v. Lavi, 33 N.Y.S.3d 351, 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016); Mu-Jin Chen v. Cardenia, 31 N.Y.S.3d 134, 135 (N.Y. Ap......
-
Miller v. Cnty. of Suffolk
...114 A.D.3d at 819, 980 N.Y.S.2d 564 ; see Mark v. New York City Tr. Auth., 150 A.D.3d 980, 981, 55 N.Y.S.3d 128 ; Blair v. Coleman, 146 A.D.3d 743, 744, 44 N.Y.S.3d 538 ). In support of their motion for summary judgment, Gil and Hampton Outdoor established, prima facie, that Miller was negl......
-
Mark v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
...to see what can be seen through the reasonable use of his or her senses to avoid colliding with other vehicles (see Blair v. Coleman, 146 A.D.3d 743, 744, 44 N.Y.S.3d 538 ; Twizer v. Lavi, 140 A.D.3d 736, 737, 33 N.Y.S.3d 351 ; Mu–Jin Chen v. Cardenia, 138 A.D.3d at 1127–1128, 31 N.Y.S.3d 1......