Viegas v. Esposito
| Decision Date | 21 December 1987 |
| Citation | 135 A.D.2d 708,522 N.Y.S.2d 608 |
| Parties | Rosalie VIEGAS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Neil ESPOSITO, Defendant-Respondent, Elizabeth Dalton, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Diamond, Rutman & Costello (Seligson, Rothman & Rothman, New York City [Martin S. Rothman, Mark Silberglitt and Alyne I. Diamond], of counsel), for appellant.
Raymond J. MacDonnell, New York City (Anthony J. McNulty, of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and THOMPSON, BRACKEN and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Dalton appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated April 21, 1987, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as against her and the cross motion of the codefendant Esposito dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him and the cross claim against him.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In the early morning hours of May 12, 1984, a head-on collision occurred between the vehicles driven by the defendants Dalton and Esposito. The plaintiff was, at the time, a passenger in the Esposito vehicle. The police accident report contained a statement that the Dalton vehicle "skidded on wet pavement traveling north on Richmond Rd. striking [the Esposito vehicle] traveling south on Richmond Rd". Although the defendant Dalton had no recollection of the events surrounding the accident, she charged that the defendant Esposito made no attempt to maneuver his vehicle out of the way of her own vehicle which had crossed over into his lane of travel.
Without disputing the principle that negligence cases, by their very nature, do not customarily lend themselves to summary judgment resolution (see, Ugarriza v. Schmieder, 46 N.Y.2d 471, 475-476, 414 N.Y.S.2d 304, 386 N.E.2d 1324; Johannsdottir v. Kohn, 90 A.D.2d 842, 456 N.Y.S.2d 86), the instant case is not one in which competing inferences may reasonably be drawn (cf., Myers v. Fir Cab Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 806, 486 N.Y.S.2d 922, 476 N.E.2d 321; Roth v. City of New York, 130 A.D.2d 732, 733, 516 N.Y.S.2d 36). Significantly, the defendant Dalton has provided no explanation for the accident (cf., Vadala v. Carroll, 91 A.D.2d 865, 458 N.Y.S.2d 382, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 751, 463 N.Y.S.2d 432, 450 N.E.2d 238). Nor can the defendant Esposito reasonably be held to a duty to have anticipated Dalton's presence in his lane of traffic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldstein v. U.S.
...not suggest itself to a reasonably careful and prudent person as one which should be guarded against," Viegas v. Esposito, 135 A.D.2d 708, 709, 522 N.Y.S.2d 608 (2d Dep't 1987), appeal denied, 72 N.Y.2d 801, 530 N.Y.S.2d 553, 526 N.E.2d 44 (1988) (internal quotations omitted), "it is settle......
-
Forbes v. Plume
...by the other party * * * " (Morowitz v. Naughton, supra, 150 A.D.2d at 537, 541 N.Y.S.2d 122 [citations omitted]; see, Viegas v. Esposito, 135 A.D.2d 708, 522 N.Y.S.2d 608, lv. denied, 72 N.Y.2d 801, 530 N.Y.S.2d 553, 526 N.E.2d 44; see also, Cummins v. Rose, 185 A.D.2d 839, 586 N.Y.S.2d Ac......
-
Gouchie v. Gill
...158 A.D.2d at 793, 551 N.Y.S.2d 385; Morowitz v. Naughton, supra, 150 A.D.2d at 537, 541 N.Y.S.2d 122; see also, Viegas v. Esposito, 135 A.D.2d 708, 709, 522 N.Y.S.2d 608, lv. denied, 72 N.Y.2d 801, 530 N.Y.S.2d 553, 526 N.E.2d Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion grante......
-
Fuller v. Blackbird
...709; Cummins v. Rose, 185 A.D.2d 839, 586 N.Y.S.2d 988; Morowitz v. Naughton, 150 A.D.2d 536, 537, 541 N.Y.S.2d 122; Viegas v. Esposito, 135 A.D.2d 708, 522 N.Y.S.2d 608, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 801, 530 N.Y.S.2d 553, 526 N.E.2d 44). Plaintiff's speculation that Fuller may have contributed to ......