DeHoyos v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeHoyos v. City of New York

121 A.D.3d 632, 996 N.Y.S.2d 12

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2014

Docket13386 109491/11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 632 (DeHoyos 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

DeHoyos v. City of New York, 121 A.D.3d 632, 996 N.Y.S.2d 12 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered May 7, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant MTA Capital Construction Company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*633 Plaintiff testified that as he was cycling south on Second Avenue in Manhattan a passenger in a double-parked livery cab opened the cab door directly into his path, whereupon he veered into the adjacent traffic lane and was hit by another vehicle. Plaintiffs contention that MTA’s construction activities along Second Avenue obstructed his view of the cab until he was about 15 feet from it, and that if he had seen the cab from a greater distance the accident could have been avoided, is belied by his testimony that the cab door opened just as he was about to pass the cab. The opening of the cab door interrupted the nexus between any possible negligence on MTA’s part and plaintiff’s injuries and relieves MTA of any liability (see Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26 [1983]; Hoenig v Park Royal Owners, 249 AD2d 57 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 811 [1998]).

Plaintiff’s speculative request for additional discovery to determine if there were other possible causes of the accident is insufficient to defeat the motion (Flores v City of New York, 66 AD3d 599, 600 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered May 7, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant MTA Capital Construction Company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*633 Plaintiff testified that as he was cycling south on Second Avenue in Manhattan a passenger in a double-parked livery cab opened the cab door directly into his path, whereupon he veered into the adjacent traffic lane and was hit by another vehicle. Plaintiffs contention that MTA’s construction activities along Second Avenue obstructed his view of the cab until he was about 15 feet from it, and that if he had seen the cab from a greater distance the accident could have been avoided, is belied by his testimony that the cab door opened just as he was about to pass the cab. The opening of the cab door interrupted the nexus between any possible negligence on MTA’s part and plaintiff’s injuries and relieves MTA of any liability (see Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26 [1983]; Hoenig v Park Royal Owners, 249 AD2d 57 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 811 [1998]).

Plaintiff’s speculative request for additional discovery to determine if there were other possible causes of the accident is insufficient to defeat the motion (Flores v City of New York, 66 AD3d 599, 600 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 632, 996 N.Y.S.2d 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dehoyos-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack