Coleman v. Maclas, 400.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation877 N.Y.S.2d 297,61 A.D.3d 569,2009 NY Slip Op 03100
Decision Date23 April 2009
PartiesPIERETTE COLEMAN, Appellant, v. LEONCIO MACLAS et al., Respondents.
Docket Number400.,400A.
61 A.D.3d 569
877 N.Y.S.2d 297
2009 NY Slip Op 03100
PIERETTE COLEMAN, Appellant,
v.
LEONCIO MACLAS et al., Respondents.
400.
400A.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Decided April 23, 2009.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered April 9, 2008, denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, granting defendants' cross motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice entered March 20, 2008, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.


Plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle, seeks damages from defendants for injuries sustained in an accident in which that vehicle collided at an intersection with a vehicle driven by defendant Fresia Maclas.

The court properly denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. In support of her claim, plaintiff submitted her affidavit that was wholly conclusory as to defendants' negligence and failed to meet her prima facie burden establishing negligence on the part of defendants (see JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp., 4 NY3d 373, 384 [2005]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The motion court properly disregarded the uncertified police report and unauthenticated photographs as they were inadmissible hearsay (see Figueroa v Luna, 281 AD2d 204, 206 [2001]). Further, the affirmation by plaintiff's counsel, who had no personal knowledge of the accident, was not admissible evidence and, therefore, was insufficient to establish defendants' negligence (see Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 270-271 [1999]).

Defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that defendant Fresia Maclas was confronted with an emergency (see Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 326-327 [1991]). Fresia Maclas averred that she was confronted with an emergency situation when the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger veered into her lane of travel, leaving her with no

61 A.D.3d 570

alternative but to move as far to the right as possible to avoid the collision, but was hampered in her efforts due to the location of a fence near her vehicle. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 practice notes
  • FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC, 810163/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 19 d2 Agosto d2 2014
    ...purchasing the note and mortgage. E.g., Murray v. City of New York, 74 A.D.3d 550, 903 N.Y.S.2d 34 (1st Dep't 2010) ; Coleman v. Maclas, 61 A.D.3d 569, 877 N.Y.S.2d 297 (1st Dep't 2009) ; 2084–2086 BPE Assoc. v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 15 A.D.3d 288, 289, 790 N.Y.S.......
  • McIntosh v. 7 Lawrence St. Inc., Index No. 114483/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 7 d5 Fevereiro d5 2014
    ...the second summons, is by defendant's attorney. The attorney does not indicate any personal knowledge of these facts. Coleman v. Maclas, 61 A.D.3d 569 (1st Dep't 2009); 2084-2086 BPE Assoc. v. State of N.Y. Diy. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 15 A.D.3d 288, 289 (1st Dep't 2005); Figueroa v. ......
  • McGivney v. Sobel, Ross, Fliegel & Suss, LLP, Index No. 109484/2010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 9 d1 Janeiro d1 2012
    ...v. AJI Indus., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 733, 735 (2008); JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 373, 384 (2005); Coleman v. Maclas, 61 A.D.3d 569 (1st Dep't 2009).V. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, the court grants defendants' motion to the extent of dismissing plaintiffs' se......
  • Royal Waste Servs., Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., Index No. 112999/2010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 31 d5 Janeiro d5 2014
    ...fails to indicate personal knowledge and is unsubstantiated by any admissible documentary evidence of such a payment. Coleman v. Maclas, 61 A.D.3d at 569; Zuluaga v. P.P.C. Constr., LLC, 45 A.D.3d 479, 480 (1st Dep't 2007); 2084-2086 BPE Assoc. v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Ren......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
56 cases
  • FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC, 810163/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 19 d2 Agosto d2 2014
    ...purchasing the note and mortgage. E.g., Murray v. City of New York, 74 A.D.3d 550, 903 N.Y.S.2d 34 (1st Dep't 2010) ; Coleman v. Maclas, 61 A.D.3d 569, 877 N.Y.S.2d 297 (1st Dep't 2009) ; 2084–2086 BPE Assoc. v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 15 A.D.3d 288, 289, 790 N.Y.S.......
  • McIntosh v. 7 Lawrence St. Inc., Index No. 114483/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 7 d5 Fevereiro d5 2014
    ...the second summons, is by defendant's attorney. The attorney does not indicate any personal knowledge of these facts. Coleman v. Maclas, 61 A.D.3d 569 (1st Dep't 2009); 2084-2086 BPE Assoc. v. State of N.Y. Diy. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 15 A.D.3d 288, 289 (1st Dep't 2005); Figueroa v. ......
  • McGivney v. Sobel, Ross, Fliegel & Suss, LLP, Index No. 109484/2010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 9 d1 Janeiro d1 2012
    ...v. AJI Indus., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 733, 735 (2008); JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 373, 384 (2005); Coleman v. Maclas, 61 A.D.3d 569 (1st Dep't 2009).V. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, the court grants defendants' motion to the extent of dismissing plaintiffs' se......
  • Royal Waste Servs., Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., Index No. 112999/2010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 31 d5 Janeiro d5 2014
    ...fails to indicate personal knowledge and is unsubstantiated by any admissible documentary evidence of such a payment. Coleman v. Maclas, 61 A.D.3d at 569; Zuluaga v. P.P.C. Constr., LLC, 45 A.D.3d 479, 480 (1st Dep't 2007); 2084-2086 BPE Assoc. v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Ren......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT