Esposito v. Rea

243 A.D.2d 536, 665 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9809
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 14, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 536 (Esposito v. Rea) 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
Esposito v. Rea, 243 A.D.2d 536, 665 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant Joan Glee-son appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated October 4, 1996, which deniéd her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims insofar as asserted against her.

[537]*537Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint and any cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Joan Gleeson.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, even if the appellant was negligent in permitting her automobile to run out of gas and pulling over to the side of the road, this was not a proximate cause of the death of the plaintiffs decedent. Rather, at most the appellant merely furnished the condition for the occurrence of the accident (see, Dunlap v City of New York, 186 AD2d 782; Williams v Envelope Tr. Corp., 186 AD2d 797). Furthermore, it was not foreseeable that the plaintiffs decedent would be hit by the oncoming vehicle of the defendant Joseph Rea as a consequence of the appellant’s alleged negligence, especially since the plaintiffs decedent eschewed the comparative safety of the available sidewalk, and instead gratuitously chose to stand in the roadway while the car was being fueled (see, Ventricelli v Kinney Sys. Rent A Car, 45 NY2d 950; Mikelinich v Giovannetti, 239 AD2d 471; Hallett v Akintola, 178 AD2d 744). Accordingly, the appellant demonstrated her entitlement to summary judgment. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pierre v. Olshever
137 A.D.3d 1243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
De Nise v. New York City Transit Authority
38 Misc. 3d 358 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Rozz v. Village Auto Body Works, Inc.
35 Misc. 3d 13 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Jablonski v. Jakaitis
85 A.D.3d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Flederbach v. Lennett
65 A.D.3d 1011 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Diaz v. Green
47 A.D.3d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Schiff v. Possemato
25 A.D.3d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Kalinoglu v. Kritikos
273 A.D.2d 444 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Tucker v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Buffalo, Inc.
265 A.D.2d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Gilmore v. Ritchie
260 A.D.2d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Hoenig v. Park Royal Owners Inc.
249 A.D.2d 57 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Feehan v. Hong-Suh Park
248 A.D.2d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D.2d 536, 665 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esposito-v-rea-nyappdiv-1997.