Deleg v. Vinci

82 A.D.3d 1146, 919 N.Y.2d 396
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 29, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1146 (Deleg v. Vinci) 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
Deleg v. Vinci, 82 A.D.3d 1146, 919 N.Y.2d 396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs demonstrated that the vehicle driven by the defendant Mark C. Vinci and owned by the defendant James E Vinci struck a vehicle in which the plaintiff Maria Deleg was a passenger. The accident occurred when Mark C. Vinci failed to stop at a red signal and proceeded through an intersection in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (2), striking the plaintiffs’ vehicle (see Monteleone v Jung Pyo Hong, 79 AD3d 988 [2010]; Ramos v Triboro Coach Corp., 31 AD3d 625 [2006]; Borges v Zukowski, 22 AD3d 439 [2005]; Casanova v New York City Tr. Auth., 279 AD2d 495 [2001]). In opposition to the motion, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Cavitch v Mateo, 58 AD3d 592 [2009]).

Furthermore, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs’ motion was not premature, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiffs and the nonparty driver (see Kimyagarov v Nixon Taxi Corp., 45 AD3d 736 [2007]). “[T]he defendants’ purported need to conduct discovery did not warrant denial of the motion since they already had personal knowledge of the relevant facts” (Abramov v Miral Corp., 24 AD3d 397, 398 [2005]). “The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion” (Lopez v WS Distrib., Inc., 34 AD3d 759, 760 [2006]; see Corwin v Heart Share Human Servs. of N.Y., 66 AD3d 814 [2009]; Monteleone v Jung Pyo Hong, 79 AD3d 988 [2010]).

[1147]*1147Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Covello, J.E, Belen, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Deal v. Bank of Am. Leasing Capital, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 51354(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Duvalsaint v. Yupe-Garcia
2019 NY Slip Op 1196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Jiang-Hong Chen v. Heart Transit, Inc.
2016 NY Slip Op 7002 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Schwab v. Silva
140 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Lesaldo v. Dabas
140 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Jung Geun Lee v. Mason
139 A.D.3d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Turner v. Butler
139 A.D.3d 715 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Twarog v. Ortiz-Deviteri
137 A.D.3d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Chuachingco v. Christ
132 A.D.3d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
McCourt v. Wasilewski
122 A.D.3d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Farris v. Reyes
119 A.D.3d 734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
American Security Insurance v. Church of God of St. Albans
38 Misc. 3d 274 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Kalafatis v. Royal Waste Services, Inc.
95 A.D.3d 954 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Jones v. American Commerce Insurance
92 A.D.3d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Seawright v. Port Authority
90 A.D.3d 1017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Arazashvilli v. Executive Fleet Management, Corp.
90 A.D.3d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.3d 1146, 919 N.Y.2d 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deleg-v-vinci-nyappdiv-2011.