Guerra v. Cantos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guerra v. Cantos

38 A.D.3d 714, 830 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 714 (Guerra v. Cantos) 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

Guerra v. Cantos, 38 A.D.3d 714, 830 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated March 28, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [715]*715[1985]). The parties gave conflicting deposition testimony as to how the accident occurred. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must (see Makaj v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 18 AD3d 625, 626 [2005]), we find that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant driver cut in front of the plaintiff without signaling and contributed to this rear-end collision (see Briceno v Milbry, 16 AD3d 448, 448-449 [2005]; Mohan v Puthumana, 302 AD2d 437 [2003]; Rozengauz v Lok Wing Ha, 280 AD2d 534, 535 [2001]; Green v Hong Lee Trading, 263 AD2d 445 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Crane, J.E, Florio, Fisher and Dickerson, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated March 28, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [715]*715[1985]). The parties gave conflicting deposition testimony as to how the accident occurred. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must (see Makaj v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 18 AD3d 625, 626 [2005]), we find that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant driver cut in front of the plaintiff without signaling and contributed to this rear-end collision (see Briceno v Milbry, 16 AD3d 448, 448-449 [2005]; Mohan v Puthumana, 302 AD2d 437 [2003]; Rozengauz v Lok Wing Ha, 280 AD2d 534, 535 [2001]; Green v Hong Lee Trading, 263 AD2d 445 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Crane, J.E, Florio, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 714, 830 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guerra-v-cantos-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack