Iqbal v. Petrov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iqbal v. Petrov

9 A.D.3d 416, 780 N.Y.S.2d 174, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9859

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 19, 2004·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Simon Roth appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated September 10, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Simon Roth, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The defendant Simon Roth established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the negligence of the defendant Alexsandr Petrov in failing to stop at a red traffic light and proceeding through the intersection without stopping was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Lestingi v Holland, 297 AD2d 627, 628 [2002]; Casanova v New York City Tr. Auth., 279 AD2d 495 [2001]; Diasparra v Smith, 253 AD2d 840 [1998]; Salenius v Lisbon, 217 AD2d 692, 693 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Stiles v County of Dutchess, 278 AD2d 304, 305 [2000]; Cenovski v Lee, 266 [417]*417AD2d 424 [1999]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Rivera and Lifson, 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, etc., the defendant Simon Roth appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated September 10, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Simon Roth, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The defendant Simon Roth established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the negligence of the defendant Alexsandr Petrov in failing to stop at a red traffic light and proceeding through the intersection without stopping was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Lestingi v Holland, 297 AD2d 627, 628 [2002]; Casanova v New York City Tr. Auth., 279 AD2d 495 [2001]; Diasparra v Smith, 253 AD2d 840 [1998]; Salenius v Lisbon, 217 AD2d 692, 693 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Stiles v County of Dutchess, 278 AD2d 304, 305 [2000]; Cenovski v Lee, 266 [417]*417AD2d 424 [1999]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Iqbal v. Petrov, 9 A.D.3d 416, 780 N.Y.S.2d 174, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

9 A.D.3d 416 (Iqbal v. Petrov) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related