Espinoza v. Coco-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Espinoza v. Coco-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc.

121 A.D.3d 640, 993 N.Y.S.2d 721

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2014

Docket2014-05313

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 640 (Espinoza v. Coco-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc.) 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

Espinoza v. Coco-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc., 121 A.D.3d 640, 993 N.Y.S.2d 721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 13, 2014, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In a personal injury action, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]; Gorenkoff v Nagar, 120 AD3d 470 [2014]; Pollack v Margolin, 84 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2011]), since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident (see Adobea v Junel, 114 AD3d 818 [2014]; Allen v Echols, 88 AD3d 926 [2011]).

*641 Here, the plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting his affidavit, which demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant driver was negligent in suddenly pulling his vehicle out of a parking spot, without warning, into a lane of moving traffic, striking the plaintiffs vehicle, and that the defendant driver’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Calandra v Dishotsky, 244 AD2d 376 [1997]; see also Smalls v Adams, 118 AD3d 693 [2014]; Jacino v Sugerman, 10 AD3d 593 [2004]). In opposition, the defendants submitted the affidavit of the defendant driver, which provided a conflicting version of the facts surrounding the accident. Under these circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault (see generally Incle v Byrne-Lowell, 115 AD3d 709 [2014]; Singh v Thomas, 113 AD3d 748 [2014]; Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725 [2011]; Anyanwu v Johnson, 276 AD2d 572 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Maltese and Barros, 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, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 13, 2014, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In a personal injury action, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault (see Thoma v Ronai, 82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]; Gorenkoff v Nagar, 120 AD3d 470 [2014]; Pollack v Margolin, 84 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2011]), since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident (see Adobea v Junel, 114 AD3d 818 [2014]; Allen v Echols, 88 AD3d 926 [2011]).

*641 Here, the plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting his affidavit, which demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant driver was negligent in suddenly pulling his vehicle out of a parking spot, without warning, into a lane of moving traffic, striking the plaintiffs vehicle, and that the defendant driver’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Calandra v Dishotsky, 244 AD2d 376 [1997]; see also Smalls v Adams, 118 AD3d 693 [2014]; Jacino v Sugerman, 10 AD3d 593 [2004]). In opposition, the defendants submitted the affidavit of the defendant driver, which provided a conflicting version of the facts surrounding the accident. Under these circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault (see generally Incle v Byrne-Lowell, 115 AD3d 709 [2014]; Singh v Thomas, 113 AD3d 748 [2014]; Ortiz v Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725 [2011]; Anyanwu v Johnson, 276 AD2d 572 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 640, 993 N.Y.S.2d 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/espinoza-v-coco-cola-bottling-co-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack