Beaubrun v. Boltachev

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beaubrun v. Boltachev

111 A.D.3d 494, 974 N.Y.S.2d 782

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 111 A.D.3d 494 (Beaubrun v. Boltachev) 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

Beaubrun v. Boltachev, 111 A.D.3d 494, 974 N.Y.S.2d 782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered November 26, 2012, which denied the motion of defendants Anton Boltachev and Raneen Taxi, Inc. (collectively Boltachev) for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in this action where plaintiff was injured when, while attempting to enter Boltachev’s taxi, he was struck by a taxi driven by defendant Mbengue. The court properly determined that triable issues of fact exist inasmuch as the drivers provided conflicting accounts of the accident (see Ramos v Rojas, 37 AD3d 291 [1st Dept 2007]). Boltachev contends that his taxi was stopped when he was hit in the rear by Mbengue’s taxi. Mbengue, on the other hand, maintains that Boltachev’s taxi cut off his vehicle in order to pick up a potential customer (plaintiff). The police accident report also does not reflect damage to the rear of Boltachev’s cab, and it is not the court’s function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility (see id. at 292). Furthermore, even accepting Boltachev’s version of the accident, issues of fact exist as to whether Boltachev violated 34 RCNY 4-11 (c) when picking up plaintiff, and whether this violation was a proximate cause of the accident. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Freedman, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered November 26, 2012, which denied the motion of defendants Anton Boltachev and Raneen Taxi, Inc. (collectively Boltachev) for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in this action where plaintiff was injured when, while attempting to enter Boltachev’s taxi, he was struck by a taxi driven by defendant Mbengue. The court properly determined that triable issues of fact exist inasmuch as the drivers provided conflicting accounts of the accident (see Ramos v Rojas, 37 AD3d 291 [1st Dept 2007]). Boltachev contends that his taxi was stopped when he was hit in the rear by Mbengue’s taxi. Mbengue, on the other hand, maintains that Boltachev’s taxi cut off his vehicle in order to pick up a potential customer (plaintiff). The police accident report also does not reflect damage to the rear of Boltachev’s cab, and it is not the court’s function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility (see id. at 292). Furthermore, even accepting Boltachev’s version of the accident, issues of fact exist as to whether Boltachev violated 34 RCNY 4-11 (c) when picking up plaintiff, and whether this violation was a proximate cause of the accident. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Freedman, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 494, 974 N.Y.S.2d 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaubrun-v-boltachev-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack