Borges v. Zukowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Borges v. Zukowski

22 A.D.3d 439, 801 N.Y.S.2d 544

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 3, 2005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated September 27, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants presented a prima facie case that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the plaintiff Isaac Borges in proceeding through an intersection against a red traffic light without stopping (see Iqbal v Petrov, 9 AD3d 416 [2004]; Lestingi v Holland, 297 AD2d 627 [2002]; see also Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 [d]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Iqbal v Petrov, supra; Lestingi v Holland, supra). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Fisher, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated September 27, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants presented a prima facie case that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the plaintiff Isaac Borges in proceeding through an intersection against a red traffic light without stopping (see Iqbal v Petrov, 9 AD3d 416 [2004]; Lestingi v Holland, 297 AD2d 627 [2002]; see also Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 [d]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Iqbal v Petrov, supra; Lestingi v Holland, supra). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Borges v. Zukowski, 22 A.D.3d 439, 801 N.Y.S.2d 544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

22 A.D.3d 439 (Borges v. Zukowski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related