Silberman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Service, Inc.
| Citation | 109 A.D.2d 833,486 N.Y.S.2d 357 |
| Parties | Serge SILBERMAN, et al., Respondents, et al., Plaintiff, v. SURREY CADILLAC LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1985 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Berel, Navarra & Mullen, P.C., New York City (Harold Berel and John DeMaio, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Glabman Ruberstein Reingold & Rothbart, Brooklyn (Abraham Reingold, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondents.
Before LAZER, J.P., and GIBBONS, THOMPSON and NIEHOFF, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants Surrey Cadillac Limousine Service, Inc. and Louis Bianco appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered July 13, 1984, which granted plaintiffs Serge Silberman's and Irene Silberman's motion for summary judgment against appellants, ordered an assessment of damages, and severed the action against defendant Rena Hoffman.
Order affirmed, with costs.
The Silbermans' claims are based upon injuries sustained when a vehicle in which plaintiff Serge Silberman was riding as a passenger, which was owned by appellant Surrey Cadillac Limousine Service, Inc. and was operated by appellant Louis Bianco, ran into the rear end of the vehicle in front. The only explanation provided by appellants for the accident is that the vehicle in front had stopped suddenly and without warning. Based on these facts, Special Term granted respondents' motion for summary judgment. Appellants contend that this was error, arguing that their explanation sufficed to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Bianco acted negligently (compare Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361, 362 N.Y.S.2d 131, 320 N.E.2d 853 with Ugarriza v. Schmieder, 46 N.Y.2d 471, 414 N.Y.S.2d 304, 386 N.E.2d 1324). We disagree.
Bianco was under a duty to maintain a safe distance between the two vehicles (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a] ) and his failure to do so, in the absence of an adequate, nonnegligent explanation, constituted negligence as a matter of law (see Opalek v. Oshrain, 33 A.D.2d 521, 305 N.Y.S.2d 675). Nor is the right of an innocent passenger to summary judgment in any way restricted by questions of comparative negligence which may exist as between appellants and the driver of the vehicle in front (see Kiernan v. Edwards, 97 A.D.2d 750, 468 N.Y.S.2d 381).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillip v. D & D Carting Co.
...at 207, 723 N.Y.S.2d 163 ; Johnson v. Phillips, 261 A.D.2d 269, 272, 690 N.Y.S.2d 545 ; Silberman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 A.D.2d 833, 833–834, 486 N.Y.S.2d 357 ). Thus, had the only triable issue of fact raised by D & D and Gutierrez been the Sunjet defendants' comparative f......
-
Daliendo v. Johnson
...v. Merritt, 123 A.D.2d 738, 739, 507 N.Y.S.2d 210; Cohen v. Terranella, 112 A.D.2d 264, 491 N.Y.S.2d 711; Silberman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Ser., 109 A.D.2d 833, 486 N.Y.S.2d 357). Compelled to lay bare their proof on this issue, the corporate defendants submitted an attorney's affirma......
-
Countermine v. Galka
...Sys., 162 A.D.2d 572, 573, 556 N.Y.S.2d 761; Daliendo v. Johnson, 147 A.D.2d 312, 321, 543 N.Y.S.2d 987; Silberman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 A.D.2d 833, 486 N.Y.S.2d 357). Galka testified that she was traveling 30 miles per hour and looked up once prior to the accident and obs......
-
Balladares v. City of N.Y.
...782, 783, 93 N.Y.S.3d 390 ; Anzel v. Pistorino, 105 A.D.3d 784, 786, 962 N.Y.S.2d 700 ; Silberman v. Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 A.D.2d 833, 486 N.Y.S.2d 357 ). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.The defendants' contention that the plaintiffs' mot......