Inesta v. Florio
| Decision Date | 07 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2017–00711,Index No.100040/13 |
| Citation | 71 N.Y.S.3d 161,159 A.D.3d 682 |
| Parties | Eric R. INESTA, et al., appellants, v. Mary FLORIO, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jonathan D'Agostino & Associates, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Glen Devora of counsel), for appellants.
Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum and Jackie Gross ], of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Troia, J.), dated October 28, 2016, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
A car driven by the plaintiff Eric R. Inesta (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) and a car driven by the defendant collided while the defendant was driving westbound on a two-lane road with curbside parking and the injured plaintiff was pulling into the westbound lane from a parking space. The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiffs appeal.
The Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, a defendant driver seeking summary judgment is required to make a prima facie showing that he or she is free from comparative fault (see Gobin v. Delgado, 142 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 38 N.Y.S.3d 63 ; Incle v. Byrne–Lowell, 115 A.D.3d 709, 710, 981 N.Y.S.2d 617 ). "Generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause" ( Kalland v. Hungry Harbor Assoc., LLC, 84 A.D.3d 889, 889, 922 N.Y.S.2d 550 ; see Gobin v. Delgado, 142 A.D.3d at 1135, 38 N.Y.S.3d 63).
Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff's negligence in pulling out of a curbside parking spot was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that the defendant was free from comparative fault (see Espinoza v. Coco–Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 121 A.D.3d 640, 641, 993 N.Y.S.2d 721 ). In particular, the defendant failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballentine v. Perrone
...moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law (see Inesta v. Florio, 159 A.D.3d 682, 71 N.Y.S.3d 161 ; Colpan v. Allied Cent. Ambulette, Inc., 97 A.D.3d 776, 777, 949 N.Y.S.2d 124 ; Pollack v. Margolin, 84 A.D.3d 1341, 924 ......
-
Mendel v. Massre
...moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law (see Inesta v. Florio, 159 A.D.3d 682, 71 N.Y.S.3d 161; Colpan v. Allied Cent. Ambulette, Inc., 97 A.D.3d 776, 777, 949 N.Y.S.2d 124; Pollack v. Margolin, 84 A.D.3d 1341, 924 N.......
-
Rivera v. Town of Wappinger
...the circumstances, it cannot be said as a matter of law that Ayers used reasonable care to avoid the accident (see Inesta v. Florio, 159 A.D.3d 682, 71 N.Y.S.3d 161 ; Blair v. Coleman, 146 A.D.3d at 744, 44 N.Y.S.3d 538 ; Gezelter v. Pecora, 129 A.D.3d at 1023, 13 N.Y.S.3d 141 ). Since the ......
-
Yang v. Sanacore
...use of his or her senses, the driver should have seen (see Sage v. Taylor, 195 A.D.3d 971, 972, 146 N.Y.S.3d 496 ; Inesta v. Florio, 159 A.D.3d 682, 683, 71 N.Y.S.3d 161 ). Here, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party (see Pearson v. Dix McB......