Zapata v. Sutton

Decision Date12 May 2011
PartiesEmiliano ZAPATA, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Ayanna SUTTON, et al., Defendants,Michael P. Giachinta, et al., Defendants–Respondents.[And Another Action]Jorge Adrian Bernal Cuapio, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.Michael P. Giachinta, et al., Defendants–Respondents,Shirley J. Jackson, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Sullivan, Papain, Block, McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., New York (Susan M. Jaffe of counsel), for Emiliano Zapata, appellant.Bornstein & Emanuel, P.C., Garden City (Mitchell Dranow of counsel), for Jorge Adrian Bernal Cuapio and Louis Gerstman, etc., appellants.Armienti, DeBellis, Guglielmo & Rhoden, LLP, New York (Vanessa M. Corchia of counsel), for respondents.GONZALEZ, P.J., TOM, ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered January 8, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Michael Giachinta and Putnam Tire Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross claims asserted against them in Actions Nos. 1 and 3, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Giachinta, who was driving in his proper lane, was “presented ... with an emergency situation not of his own making” and almost no time to react when defendant Ayanna Sutton's vehicle crossed over double yellow lines into his lane from the opposite direction and collided with his vehicle, and therefore he cannot be found “negligently responsible for any part of the accident” ( Williams v. Simpson, 36 A.D.3d 507, 829 N.Y.S.2d 51 [2007]; Gonzalez v. City of New York, 295 A.D.2d 122, 742 N.Y.S.2d 301 [2002]; Caban v. Vega, 226 A.D.2d 109, 111, 640 N.Y.S.2d 58 [1996] ).

Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, nothing in the record indicates that Giachinta was driving inattentively, at excessive speed, or in slippery road conditions. Nor does the record support the contention that Giachinta unreasonably steered his wheel towards the northbound lane in response to the emergency created by Sutton. The affidavit by plaintiffs' expert stating otherwise provides “nothing more than pure speculation, unsupported by reference to any facts in the record or personal observations” and therefore is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the reasonableness of Giachinta's actions ( Saborido–Calvo v. New York City Tr. Auth., 11 A.D.3d 216, 782 N.Y.S.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Rivera v. Merrill Lynch/Wfc/L/Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 12, 2011
  • Mack v. Seabrook, 6738
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 31, 2018
    ...vehicle before the accident and the fact that he did not submit an affidavit from someone who did (see Zapata v. Sutton, 84 A.D.3d 521, 922 N.Y.S.2d 400 [1st Dept. 2011] ...
  • Melendez v. Dorville
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 20, 2012
    ...of the infant's records ( see Vazquez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 79 A.D.3d 623, 914 N.Y.S.2d 127 [2010]; Zapata v. Sutton, 84 A.D.3d 521, 922 N.Y.S.2d 400 [2011] ). The motion court made no determination of the credibility of defendants' expert. It simply considered the bases for his opi......
  • Reeva A.C. v. Richard C.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • May 12, 2011
  • 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