Florio v. Baierlein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Florio v. Baierlein

225 A.D.2d 584, 638 N.Y.2d 783

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 584 (Florio v. Baierlein) 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

Florio v. Baierlein, 225 A.D.2d 584, 638 N.Y.2d 783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

This appeal stems from an automobile accident which occurred when the delivery truck driven by the defendant Henry Baierlein, in which the appellant was a passenger, careened out of control on Sunrise Highway, vaulted over a concrete divider, and landed on the hood of an oncoming vehicle driven by the respondent Joann Florio. The respondents’ motion papers clearly established that the subject accident was not occasioned by any negligence on the part of Joann Florio, who was in no position to take any steps to either reasonably foresee or avoid the collision (see, Morowitz v Naughton, 150 AD2d 536; see also, Rivas v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 203 AD2d 349; Moller v Lieber, 156 AD2d 434; Tenenbaum v Martin, 131 AD2d 660).

The papers submitted by the appellant in opposition to the motion were insufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the respondents. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

This appeal stems from an automobile accident which occurred when the delivery truck driven by the defendant Henry Baierlein, in which the appellant was a passenger, careened out of control on Sunrise Highway, vaulted over a concrete divider, and landed on the hood of an oncoming vehicle driven by the respondent Joann Florio. The respondents’ motion papers clearly established that the subject accident was not occasioned by any negligence on the part of Joann Florio, who was in no position to take any steps to either reasonably foresee or avoid the collision (see, Morowitz v Naughton, 150 AD2d 536; see also, Rivas v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 203 AD2d 349; Moller v Lieber, 156 AD2d 434; Tenenbaum v Martin, 131 AD2d 660).

The papers submitted by the appellant in opposition to the motion were insufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the respondents. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 584, 638 N.Y.2d 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florio-v-baierlein-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack