Aromando v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aromando v. City of New York

202 A.D.2d 617, 609 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2937

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 28, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 617 (Aromando v. City of New York) 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

Aromando v. City of New York, 202 A.D.2d 617, 609 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated April 8, 1992, which denied his motion for summary judgment against the defendant City of New York.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the defendant City of New York is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a trial on the issue of damages.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a), the operator of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger "was under a duty to maintain a safe distance between [his vehicle and the vehicle in front of him] and his failure to do so, in the absence of an adequate, nonnegligent explanation, constituted negligence as a matter of law” (Silberman v Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 AD2d 833). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated April 8, 1992, which denied his motion for summary judgment against the defendant City of New York.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the defendant City of New York is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a trial on the issue of damages.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a), the operator of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger "was under a duty to maintain a safe distance between [his vehicle and the vehicle in front of him] and his failure to do so, in the absence of an adequate, nonnegligent explanation, constituted negligence as a matter of law” (Silberman v Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv., 109 AD2d 833). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 617, 609 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aromando-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack