Gardella v. Esposito Foods, Inc.
This text of 80 A.D.3d 660 (Gardella v. Esposito Foods, 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.
Opinion
— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), dated December 21, 2009, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). “There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” (Cox v Nunez, 23 AD3d 427, 427 [2005]; see Topalis v Zwolski, 76 AD3d 524 [2010]; Todd v Godek, 71 AD3d 872, 872 [2010]). Under the circumstances here, even if the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1143 and 1211 (a), the bare affidavit of the plaintiff did not establish, as a matter of law, the plaintiff’s freedom from comparative negligence (see generally Cali v Mustafa, 68 AD3d 700, 701 [2009]; cf. Sanabria v Paduch, 61 AD3d 839 [2009]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Dickerson, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
80 A.D.3d 660, 914 N.Y.S.2d 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardella-v-esposito-foods-inc-nyappdiv-2011.