Layne v. Ramirez

2025 NY Slip Op 32315(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Kings County
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 525865/2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Layne v Ramirez 2025 NY Slip Op 32315(U) June 26, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 525865/2022 Judge: Anne J. Swern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:56 PM INDEX NO. 525865/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025

At an IAS Trial Tenn, Part 7 5 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, at the. Courthouse located at 360 Adams Street; Brooklyn,NewYork oh the 26TH day of June 2025 PRESENT: HON.ANNEJ. SWERN,J.S.C.

LOVELA. LAYNE, DECISION & ORDER Index No.: 525865/2022 Plaintiff Calendar No.: 22 & 23 -against- Motion Seq.: 001 & 002 J P MOLINA RAMIREZ a/k/a JESUS P. MOLINA RAMIREZ and BONFILIO FLORES;

Defendqnts.

Recitation ofthefollowingpapers as requiredby·CPLR 2219(a): Papers Numbered MSOOl Plaintiff's Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Affidavits and Exhibits (NYSCEF 23-33) ........ ,............... ,........................ .l, 2 Affirmation and Exhibits in Opposition (NYSCEF 38-41) ............ ,............. ,.3 Opposition to Cross Motion & Reply Affirmation with Exhibits (NYSCEF 38-41) .. ,...... ,.. , .............................. ,._; ... .4

MS002 Defendants' Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirmation, Affidavits and Exhibits (NYSCEF 35-37) .................................................. 5, 6 Affirmation and Exhibits in Opposition (NYSCEF 38-41) ................. ;......... ;7 ReplyAffirmation{NYSCEF 42) ............................................................. ,..... &·

Upon the foregoingpapers and ajteroral argument, the decision•and order ofthe Court

is as follows:

This is an action for personal injuries arising out of.an automobile ac.cident .on 8/5/2020.,

Both parties have moved for summaryjudgment in their favor.

Plaintiff testified that wllile traveling northbound on Route 9A,just north ofRoute 133,

Village of Ossining, NewYork, she. observ¢d a flying box approximately five to six·car·lengths

526865/2022, Pagelo/4

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:56 PM INDEX NO. 525865/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025

in front of her coming from the southbound lanes of traffic. Plaintiff slowed down from 25 mph

to 15 mph, without stopping, when she heard a "bang," as defendants' vehicle struck her in the

rear driver's side of her vehicleinvio lation ofVTL § 1129 [a]. Defendant testified thathe was

traveling in the left lane at 50 mph when plaintiff abruptly cut from the right lat1e into his lane of

traffic in violation of VTL § 1128 [a]. Further, plaintiff was erratically changing lanes before the

accident and completely stopped her vehicle across· both lanes of traffic.· Defendant could not

avoid the accident as there was a guardrail to his left. Both parties submitted photographs ofthe

vehicles demonstrating. that the points of impact were the left rear comet of plaintiff's vehicle

and the right front corner of defendants' vehicle.

Sllinmaryjud gmentmay be granted only when no triable issue of fact exists (Alvarez v

Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). ''A party moving for summary judgment must make a

prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of faw, producing sufficient evidence

to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact. However; a failure. to demonstrate a

prima f acie entitlement to summary judgment motion, requires a denial of the motion regardless

ofthe adequacy of the opposing papers" (Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 1063 [1993], citing

Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 324). ''Once this showing has been made, the burden

shifts to the. nonmoving party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible• form sufficient to

establish the existence of material issues of fact that require a trial for resolution'' (Giuffrida v

Citibank, 100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003] and Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 324).

The Courfs only role µpon a motioriJor summary judgment is to identify the existence of

triable issues, and not to determine the merits of any such issues (Vega v Restani Construction

Corp., 18 NY3d 499; 505 [2012]) or the credibility of the movant's Version of events (see Xiang

Fu He v Troon Management, Inc., 34NY3d 167, 175 [2019l[intem al citations omitted]). The

526865/2022 l'age2of4

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:56 PM INDEX NO. 525865/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025

Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, affording them

the benefitofall reasonable inferencesthat can be drawn from the evidence (seeNegri vShop &

Stop, Inc., 65 NY2d 625, 626 [1985]). The motion should be denied where the facts ate in

dispute, where different inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where the credibility of

the witnesses is in question (see Cameron v City of Long Beach, 297 AD2d 773, 774 [2d Dept.

2002]).

Aviolation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se (Siezeme v Levy,

208 AD3d 809, 810 [2nd Dept 2022]}. However, a party with the right of way may be held

tesponsiblefor the accident ifhe or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident even

though proceeding with the•right-of.;.way (Jeong SookLee-Son vDoe; 170 AD3d 973, 975 [2d

Dept. 2019]).

Both motions are denied. Neither party established apriinafade entitlement to sliinmary

judgment (Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1063). Plaintiffsubmitted the parties' deposition

testimony and color photographs in support of the rubtion. Based On the testimony and

photographs, plaintiff and defendants argue that the other violated separate sections of the

Vehicle and Traffic Law. These questions of credibility and fact must be resolvedby ajury

(Cameron v City of Long Beach, 297 AD2d 774). The Court cannot determine upon motions for

summary judgment the credibility and merits of either movant's version of events version of

events(id.; andXiang Fu. He v Troon Management, Inc., 34 NY3d 175).

The: Court has·consideredthe parties:·re:maining arguments and finds same to be without

Accordi11gly, it is hereby

$26865/2022 PageJoj,i

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/30/2025 12:56 PM INDEX NO. 525865/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/30/2025

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (MS __00l) and defendants'

cross-motion for summary judgment(MS_002) are denied.

This,constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

For Clerks use only: on. nne J. Swern, J.S.C. MG. _ _ Dated:. 6/26/2025 MD _ _

Motion seq.# _ _ __

·526865/i022 Page4 o/4 ·

4 of 4 [* 4]