White v. Spectacular Limousine Service, Inc., 1947.
| Decision Date | 07 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | 1947.,8248/07 |
| Parties | PATRICIA A. WHITE, Respondent, v. SPECTACULAR LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants, and MARYBETH ANDREWS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In support of her motion, Andrews showed that the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger first hit and bounced off the vehicle in front of it, and then hit and bounced off the highway's concrete barrier, before making contact with Andrews's vehicle, and that neither the driver of plaintiff's vehicle, nor plaintiff herself, ever stated during their depositions that Andrews contributed to the accident in any way. This was sufficient to show, prima facie, that Andrews was faced with an emergency situation not of her own making, and was not at fault for the accident (see Ward v Cox, 38 AD3d 313, 314 [2007]). In opposition, plaintiff argued that Andrews was negligent in failing to signal prior to changing lanes, referring to the portion of Andrews's deposition in which she stated that when she observed plaintiff's vehicle in her rearview mirror swerving and fishtailing down the ramp on her right at about 70 miles per hour, she immediately moved from the middle lane into the left lane, without signaling, in order to get out of the way. Plaintiff's driver, however, never stated at his deposition that he attempted to avoid striking Andrews but was unable to do so because she changed lanes without signaling. Thus, any failure to signal was not a proximate cause of the accident. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. Morris Heights Mews Associates
...AD3d at 526-527). It also failed to reference a specific standard by asserting a minimum acceptable coefficient of friction (see id. at 69 A.D.3d 433 526; Jenkins v New York City Hous. Auth., 11 AD3d 358, 360 [2004]). For these reasons, plaintiff also failed to raise an issue of fact as to ......
-
People v. Santiago, 1946
... 69 A.D.3d 433 891 N.Y.S.2d 301 2010 NY Slip Op 70 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RALPH SANTIAGO, Appellant. 1946 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. Decided January 7, 2010. An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named......