Collazo v. Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collazo v. Lewis

210 A.D.2d 451, 620 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13181

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 451 (Collazo v. Lewis) 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

Collazo v. Lewis, 210 A.D.2d 451, 620 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13181 (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, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated July 14, 1993, which granted the motion of the defendant Pamuela A. Lewis for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This case concerns a four car, chain reaction rear-end collision. The sequence was as follows: The plaintiff Collazo struck the defendant Werbalowski from behind, driving Werbalowski into the defendant Lewis. Collazo was then in turn struck from the rear by the defendant Fitzgerald. The plaintiff commenced this action against all three defendants alleging that each was negligent. We now affirm the order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Lewis.

It was the unrebutted testimony of Lewis, the alleged catalyst of the chain reaction, that she was forced to brake suddenly after a vehicle in front of her stopped abruptly. This testimony, which was without contradiction, was supported by the testimony of the defendant Werbalowski, who stated that he saw some type of disturbance immediately in front of Lewis before the accident. Moreover, both Lewis and Werbalowski were able to stop safely and avoid striking the vehicles in front of them. Based on these facts, there is no basis for the imposition of liability upon Lewis. Bracken. J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto 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, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated July 14, 1993, which granted the motion of the defendant Pamuela A. Lewis for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This case concerns a four car, chain reaction rear-end collision. The sequence was as follows: The plaintiff Collazo struck the defendant Werbalowski from behind, driving Werbalowski into the defendant Lewis. Collazo was then in turn struck from the rear by the defendant Fitzgerald. The plaintiff commenced this action against all three defendants alleging that each was negligent. We now affirm the order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Lewis.

It was the unrebutted testimony of Lewis, the alleged catalyst of the chain reaction, that she was forced to brake suddenly after a vehicle in front of her stopped abruptly. This testimony, which was without contradiction, was supported by the testimony of the defendant Werbalowski, who stated that he saw some type of disturbance immediately in front of Lewis before the accident. Moreover, both Lewis and Werbalowski were able to stop safely and avoid striking the vehicles in front of them. Based on these facts, there is no basis for the imposition of liability upon Lewis. Bracken. J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 451, 620 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collazo-v-lewis-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack