Johnson v. Curry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Curry

2017 NY Slip Op 7863, 155 A.D.3d 1601, 63 N.Y.S.3d 300

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2017

Docket1266 CA 17-00408

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7863 (Johnson v. Curry) 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

Johnson v. Curry, 2017 NY Slip Op 7863, 155 A.D.3d 1601, 63 N.Y.S.3d 300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (E. Jeannette Ogden, J.), entered November 15, 2016. The order and judgment granted the motions of defendants for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained in a three-vehicle accident. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against them. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff’s negligence in rear-ending defendant Michael H. Stroh’s vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Gill v Braasch, 100 AD3d 1415, 1415 [4th Dept 2012]), and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]).

Present—Carni, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (E. Jeannette Ogden, J.), entered November 15, 2016. The order and judgment granted the motions of defendants for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained in a three-vehicle accident. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against them. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff’s negligence in rear-ending defendant Michael H. Stroh’s vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Gill v Braasch, 100 AD3d 1415, 1415 [4th Dept 2012]), and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]).

Present—Carni, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7863, 155 A.D.3d 1601, 63 N.Y.S.3d 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-curry-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack