Matos v. Salem Truck Leasing
| Decision Date | 17 April 2013 |
| Citation | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02548,963 N.Y.S.2d 366,105 A.D.3d 916 |
| Parties | Fernando MATOS, appellant, v. SALEM TRUCK LEASING, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Subin Associates, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Gregory T. Cerchione and Brooke Lombardi of counsel), for appellant.
Cheven, Keely & Hatzis, New York, N.Y. (William B. Stock of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated April 27, 2012, as denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff's vehicle was involved in an accident, at the intersection of Rogers Avenue and Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn, with a truck owned by the defendant Salem Truck Leasing and operated by the defendant Forrest K. Bennett. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries.
The plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In support of that branch of his motion, he submitted his own affidavit stating that the accident occurred as he was stopped for a red light on Eastern Parkway. He averred that the truck, operated by Bennett, which had been stopped directly in front of his vehicle, within the intersection of Eastern Parkway and Rogers Avenue, suddenly backed up into his stopped vehicle. He also stated that his vehicle had been stopped for more than five seconds and that, since there was another vehicle stopped behind his vehicle, there was nothing he could do to avoid contact with the truck driven by Bennett. The Supreme Court denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability through his affidavit, which demonstrated that Bennett was negligent because he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1202(a)(1)(c) and 1211(a) ( see generally Vainer v. DiSalvo, 79 A.D.3d 1023, 1023–1024, 914 N.Y.S.2d 236;Botero v. Erraez, 289 A.D.2d 274, 734 N.Y.S.2d 565;Ferrara v. Castro, 283 A.D.2d 392, 393, 724 N.Y.S.2d 81). The plaintiff also demonstrated that Bennett's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, without any comparative negligence on his part, since he had been stopped at the red light for more than five seconds before the accident occurred ( see generally Vainer v. DiSalvo, 79 A.D.3d at 1024, 914 N.Y.S.2d 236).
In opposition, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact through the affidavit of Bennett, who averred that he was stopped on Rogers Avenue, within its intersection with Eastern Parkway, because of an accident between the vehicles in front of him. He further averred that the plaintiff's vehicle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. DeCanio, 600554/15.
...155 [2d Dept 2014] ; Gonzalez v. Perkan Concrete Corp., 110 A.D.3d 955, 975 N.Y.S.2d 65 [2d Dept 2013] ; Matos v. Salem Truck Leasing, 105 A.D.3d 916, 963 N.Y.S.2d 366 [2d Dept 2013] ; Betz v. Daniel Conti, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 545, 892 N.Y.S.2d 477 [2d Dept 2010] ).Contrary to the claim of coun......
-
Midfirst Bank v. Agho
...522, 832 N.Y.S.2d 587), motions in motor vehicle negligence actions reliant upon out-of-state experts ( see Matos v. Salem Truck Leasing, 105 A.D.3d 916, 963 N.Y.S.2d 366; Fredette v. Town of Southampton, 95 A.D.3d 940, 944 N.Y.S.2d 206), and motions in contract actions reliant upon out-of-......
-
Siracusa v. Sager
...asserted against them to the extent that it was predicated on CPLR 3211(a)(7), as well as the separate motion of the defendants Audrey [963 N.Y.S.2d 366]Sager, Steven Gellerman, and Sager & Gellerman, Esq., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7......
-
Gluck v.
...68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572Singh v. Thomas, 113 A.D.3d 748, 978 N.Y.S.2d 865;Matos v. Salem Truck Leasing, 105 A.D.3d 916, 917, 963 N.Y.S.2d 366). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of ...