Prine v. Santee

• Decision Date: 07 May 2013
• Citation: 989 N.E.2d 966,21 N.Y.3d 923,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03267,967 N.Y.S.2d 684
• Parties: Mark A. PRINE, Appellant, v. Adam M. SANTEE, Appellant, Simon M. Coal–Aloor, Defendant, Anna Torres, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

21 N.Y.3d 923

989 N.E.2d 966

967 N.Y.S.2d 684

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03267

Mark A. PRINE, Appellant,

v. Adam M. SANTEE, Appellant,Simon M. Coal–Aloor, Defendant,Anna Torres, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 7, 2013.

Magavern Magavern Grimm LLP, Buffalo (Edward J. Markarian of counsel), for Mark A. Prine, appellant.

Chelus, Herdzik, Speyer & Monte, P.C., Buffalo (Katelyn E. Dieffenderfer and Scott R. Orndoff of counsel), for Adam M. Santee, appellant.

Law Office of Daniel R. Archilla, Buffalo (Jill Z. Florkowski of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff Mark A. Prine and defendant Adam M. Santee ( see e.g. Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 931, 932, 834 N.Y.S.2d 503, 866 N.E.2d 448 [2007] ), defendant Anna Torres demonstrated her entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against her. The nonmoving parties failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Torres's actions as the lead driver in this four-vehicle-chain-reaction accident constituted a contributing cause of the collision ( cf. Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 10 N.Y.3d 906, 907–908, 861 N.Y.S.2d 610, 891 N.E.2d 726 [2008] ).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and RIVERA concur.