Rosado v. Bou

Decision Date14 October 2008
Docket Number2007-10451
Citation2008 NY Slip Op 07896,866 N.Y.S.2d 231,55 A.D.3d 710
PartiesSERGIO ROSADO, Respondent, v. JOSE BOU et al., Respondents, and POPTEE PATANJO et al., Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted those branches of the cross motion of the defendant Town of Brookhaven which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross claims of the defendants Jose Bou and County of Suffolk insofar as asserted against it is dismissed as the appellants are not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion of the defendants Poptee Patanjo and Joe Del's Auto Body, Inc., doing business as Joe Del's Auto Body, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against Poptee Patanjo and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

On April 20, 2004, at approximately 4:45 P.M., the plaintiff was driving a motor scooter westbound on Montauk Highway in the Town of Brookhaven. At the intersection of Montauk Highway and Weaver Avenue, his scooter collided with a vehicle driven by the defendant Jose Bou. Bou had approached the intersection driving southbound on Weaver Avenue and had just begun to make a turn onto Montauk Highway when the accident occurred. The collision allegedly was caused, in part, by vehicles parked close to the intersection on the shoulder of Montauk Highway and on the sidewalk which obstructed the lines of vision of both the plaintiff and Bou. The vehicles allegedly had been placed there by employees of the defendant Joe Del's Auto Body, Inc., doing business as Joe Del's Auto Body (hereinafter Joe Del's Auto Body), a business located on the northeast corner of the intersection.

The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against Bou, the Town of Brookhaven, the County of Suffolk, Joe Del's Auto Body, and Poptee Patanjo, the owner of the premises occupied by Joe Del's Auto Body. The defendants Joe Del's Auto Body and Patanjo (hereinafter collectively the appellants) asserted a cross claim for contribution and common-law indemnification against Bou, the Town, and the County.

Bou testified at his deposition that he did not see the plaintiff approaching because his view was obstructed by vehicles parked on the shoulder of Montauk Highway immediately to the east of the intersection of Montauk Highway and Weaver Avenue. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not see...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Dejesus v. Adkins
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 17, 2020
    ... ... Arichabala, supra, from the case at bar. In ... Canales, a construction vehicle parked at the corner ... of the intersection where the collision occurred may have ... obstructed the vision of both the driver with the ... right-of-way (Rosado) and the driver facing a stop sign ... (Pazmino). Rosado drove through the intersection without ... specifically looking for crossing traffic and "the front ... of Rosado's vehicle collided with the front ... passenger side of Pazmino's vehicle." ... Id., (emphasis ... ...
  • Dejesus v. Adkins
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 17, 2020
    ... ... Arichabala, supra, from the case at bar. In ... Canales, a construction vehicle parked at the corner ... of the intersection where the collision occurred may have ... obstructed the vision of both the driver with the ... right-of-way (Rosado) and the driver facing a stop sign ... (Pazmino). Rosado drove through the intersection without ... specifically looking for crossing traffic and "the front ... of Rosado's vehicle collided with the front ... passenger side of Pazmino's vehicle." ... Id., (emphasis ... ...
  • Ryals v. W. 21st St. Props., LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 29, 2021
    ...maintained the requisite control over operation of the nightclub (see Bryan v. Crobar, 65 A.D.3d 997, 885 N.Y.S.2d 122 ; Rosado v. Bou, 55 A.D.3d 710, 866 N.Y.S.2d 231 ).The parties’ remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, FO......
  • Ryals v. W. 21st St. Props.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 29, 2021
    ... ... commitment by JB was violated was insufficient to raise a ... triable issue of fact as to whether W21 maintained the ... requisite control over operation of the nightclub (see ... Bryan v. Crobar, 65 A.D.3d 997; Rosado v. Bou, ... 55 A.D.3d 710) ... The ... parties' remaining contentions are either not properly ... before this Court or without merit ... RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, FORD and DOWLING, JJ., ... ...
  • 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