Kelly v. Rubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kelly v. Rubin

224 A.D.2d 262, 642 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1065

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 262 (Kelly v. Rubin) 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

Kelly v. Rubin, 224 A.D.2d 262, 642 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered December 16, 1993, which granted defendant Somma’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Somma established that he was not negligent as a matter of law by producing admissible, uncontradicted evidence that his car sustained a sudden tire blowout, and it never came into contact with plaintiffs’ or codefendant’s vehicles (see, Menekou v Crean, 222 AD2d 418). Not only did plaintiffs fail to adduce any proof showing any negligence on Somma’s part, but they also failed to offer any evidence which would warrant the conclusion that Somma’s blowout played a causal role in plaintiffs’ collision with codefendant’s vehicle (see, supra; Rosado v Cavagnaro & Sons Mach. Corp., 193 AD2d 476). Speculative theories of negligence offered in the affirmation of plaintiffs’ counsel, including the claim that defendant-respondent’s blowout could have been caused by inadequate tire maintenance, are without evidentiary value (see, Rue v Stokes, 191 AD2d 245). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered December 16, 1993, which granted defendant Somma’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Somma established that he was not negligent as a matter of law by producing admissible, uncontradicted evidence that his car sustained a sudden tire blowout, and it never came into contact with plaintiffs’ or codefendant’s vehicles (see, Menekou v Crean, 222 AD2d 418). Not only did plaintiffs fail to adduce any proof showing any negligence on Somma’s part, but they also failed to offer any evidence which would warrant the conclusion that Somma’s blowout played a causal role in plaintiffs’ collision with codefendant’s vehicle (see, supra; Rosado v Cavagnaro & Sons Mach. Corp., 193 AD2d 476). Speculative theories of negligence offered in the affirmation of plaintiffs’ counsel, including the claim that defendant-respondent’s blowout could have been caused by inadequate tire maintenance, are without evidentiary value (see, Rue v Stokes, 191 AD2d 245). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 262, 642 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-rubin-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack