Gonzalez v. O Tembelis Trans, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. O Tembelis Trans, Inc.

2020 NY Slip Op 3750, 185 A.D.3d 434, 124 N.Y.S.3d 779

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2020

Docket11764 157389/12

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 3750 (Gonzalez v. O Tembelis Trans, 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

Gonzalez v. O Tembelis Trans, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 3750, 185 A.D.3d 434, 124 N.Y.S.3d 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Gonzalez v O Tembelis Trans, Inc. (2020 NY Slip Op 03750)

Gonzalez v O Tembelis Trans, Inc.

2020 NY Slip Op 03750

Decided on July 2, 2020

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on July 2, 2020
Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Gische, Kern, Oing, González, JJ.

11764 157389/12

[*1] Luis Gonzalez, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

O Tembelis Trans, Inc., et al., Defendants, Galaxy Towers, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Stonberg Moran, LLP, New York (Carmen L. Borbon of counsel), for appellants.

Cellino & Barnes, Garden City (John E. Lavelle of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered December 20, 2019, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendants Galaxy Towers, Inc. and Jamie Solis for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that plaintiff violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1214 by opening the door of the taxi cab in which he was a passenger into the side of the passing bus driven by defendant Solis after the front of the bus had passed (see Perez v Steckler, 157 AD3d 445 [1st Dept 2018]; Montesinos v Cote, 46 AD3d 774 [2d Dept 2007]).

In opposition to defendants' showing that Solis was not negligent in connection with the accident, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Smith v City of New York, 179 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2020]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JULY 2, 2020

CLERK

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