Abramov v. Miral Corp.

24 A.D.3d 397, 805 N.Y.S.2d 119
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 5, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 397 (Abramov v. Miral Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abramov v. Miral Corp., 24 A.D.3d 397, 805 N.Y.S.2d 119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated December 1, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, Rafael Abramov, was crossing a street when he was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant Yakov Rakh[398]*398man, in an intersection in Brooklyn. The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by presenting proof that he was walking within a crosswalk when he was struck by the defendants’ vehicle and that he had looked for approaching traffic before he began to cross (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1151 [a]; Zabusky v Cochran, 234 AD2d 542 [1996]; Jermin v APA Truck Leasing Co., 237 AD2d 255 [1997]). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly considered the police accident report which contained Rakhman’s admission immediately following the accident that he had observed the pedestrian in the intersection but was unable to stop in time (see Grange v Jacobs, 11 AD3d 582 [2004]; Guevara v Zaharakis, 303 AD2d 555 [2003]).

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. We find Rakhman’s affidavit, in which he attested that the accident occurred in the middle of the block and that it was caused when the plaintiff walked into the side of his vehicle, to be a belated attempt to avoid the consequences of his earlier admission by raising a feigned issue which was insufficient to defeat the motion (see id.; Fontana v Fortunoff, 246 AD2d 626 [1998]). Moreover, the defendants’ purported need to conduct discovery did not warrant denial of the motion since they already had personal knowledge of the relevant facts (see Niyazov v Bradford, 13 AD3d 501, 502 [2004]). Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

L.J. v. Jing Zhang
2024 NY Slip Op 50177(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Sammy v. First Am. Tit. Ins. Co.
2022 NY Slip Op 03266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Yassin v. Blackman
2020 NY Slip Op 05090 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Batashvili v. Veliz-Palacios
2019 NY Slip Op 1733 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Duvalsaint v. Yupe-Garcia
2019 NY Slip Op 1196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Park v. Sanchez
2017 NY Slip Op 8279 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Lesaldo v. Dabas
140 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Turner v. Butler
139 A.D.3d 715 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Twarog v. Ortiz-Deviteri
137 A.D.3d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Garcia v. Lenox Hill Florist III, Inc.
120 A.D.3d 1296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Garzon-Victoria v. Okolo
116 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Pieper v. Hussein
102 A.D.3d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ricci v. Lo
95 A.D.3d 859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Deleg v. Vinci
82 A.D.3d 1146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Corwin v. Heart Share Human Services
66 A.D.3d 814 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
D'Avilar v. Cerebral Palsy Ass'n
63 A.D.3d 776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Sulaiman v. Thomas
54 A.D.3d 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Stickney v. Alleca
52 A.D.3d 1214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Rosenblatt v. Venizelos
49 A.D.3d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Imamkhodjaev v. Kartvelishvili
44 A.D.3d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 A.D.3d 397, 805 N.Y.S.2d 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abramov-v-miral-corp-nyappdiv-2005.