Jones v. K&C Limousines of New York, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. K&C Limousines of New York, LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 3127, 149 A.D.3d 638, 53 N.Y.S.3d 273

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

DecidedApril 25, 2017

Docket3822 305875/12

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3127 (Jones v. K&C Limousines of New York, LLC) 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

Jones v. K&C Limousines of New York, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 3127, 149 A.D.3d 638, 53 N.Y.S.3d 273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), *639 entered April 25, 2016, which granted defendant Adam Johnson’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Johnson made a prima facie showing of his lack of negligence, by submitting evidence that the limousine driven by defendant Cara Elliot rear-ended the limousine driven by Johnson after Johnson’s vehicle came to an abrupt stop (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]; Maisonet v Roman, 139 AD3d 121, 123 [1st Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 27 NY3d 1062 [2016]; Morgan v Browner, 138 AD3d 560, 560 [1st Dept 2016]).

In opposition, plaintiffs, who were passengers in the limousines, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavits submitted by plaintiffs were insufficient to raise an issue of fact, as they contradicted the affiants’ deposition testimony (see Peralta-Santos v 350 W. 49th St. Corp., 139 AD3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2016]). Moreover, defendant Elliot did not offer a non-negligent explanation for rear-ending Johnson’s limousine (see Morgan, 138 AD3d at 560). Rather, she admitted that the collision occurred almost immediately after seeing Johnson’s brake lights activate.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), *639 entered April 25, 2016, which granted defendant Adam Johnson’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Johnson made a prima facie showing of his lack of negligence, by submitting evidence that the limousine driven by defendant Cara Elliot rear-ended the limousine driven by Johnson after Johnson’s vehicle came to an abrupt stop (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]; Maisonet v Roman, 139 AD3d 121, 123 [1st Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 27 NY3d 1062 [2016]; Morgan v Browner, 138 AD3d 560, 560 [1st Dept 2016]).

In opposition, plaintiffs, who were passengers in the limousines, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavits submitted by plaintiffs were insufficient to raise an issue of fact, as they contradicted the affiants’ deposition testimony (see Peralta-Santos v 350 W. 49th St. Corp., 139 AD3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2016]). Moreover, defendant Elliot did not offer a non-negligent explanation for rear-ending Johnson’s limousine (see Morgan, 138 AD3d at 560). Rather, she admitted that the collision occurred almost immediately after seeing Johnson’s brake lights activate.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3127, 149 A.D.3d 638, 53 N.Y.S.3d 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-kc-limousines-of-new-york-llc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack