Machado v. Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Machado v. Henry

96 A.D.3d 437, 945 N.Y.S.2d 552

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

DecidedJune 7, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 A.D.3d 437 (Machado v. Henry) 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

Machado v. Henry, 96 A.D.3d 437, 945 N.Y.S.2d 552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley B. Green, J.), entered April 26, 2011, which granted the motion of defendants Wiesehof, Lufthansa Airlines and Lufthansa German Airlines for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action arising out of a three-car collision. Wiesehof testified that he was operating his vehicle in the furthest right lane of the expressway, when he was suddenly struck by another vehicle coming from his left. Moreover, the drivers of the other two cars involved (plaintiff and defendant Henry) blamed each other, but not Wiesehof, for causing the accident (see Cascante v Kakay, 88 AD3d 588 [2011]; Neryaev v Solon, 6 AD3d 510 [2004]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff’s argument that Wiesehof may have been changing lanes or merging at the moment of the accident in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128, is a feigned issue of fact, insufficient to defeat the motion (see Fernandez v Laret, 43 AD3d 347 [2007]). Plaintiff testified that Wiesehof did not cut off Henry, was not merging at the moment of the accident, and that it was Henry who hit Wiesehof. Plaintiff also signed an accident report stating that Henry was the cause of the accident. [438]*438Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley B. Green, J.), entered April 26, 2011, which granted the motion of defendants Wiesehof, Lufthansa Airlines and Lufthansa German Airlines for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action arising out of a three-car collision. Wiesehof testified that he was operating his vehicle in the furthest right lane of the expressway, when he was suddenly struck by another vehicle coming from his left. Moreover, the drivers of the other two cars involved (plaintiff and defendant Henry) blamed each other, but not Wiesehof, for causing the accident (see Cascante v Kakay, 88 AD3d 588 [2011]; Neryaev v Solon, 6 AD3d 510 [2004]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff’s argument that Wiesehof may have been changing lanes or merging at the moment of the accident in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128, is a feigned issue of fact, insufficient to defeat the motion (see Fernandez v Laret, 43 AD3d 347 [2007]). Plaintiff testified that Wiesehof did not cut off Henry, was not merging at the moment of the accident, and that it was Henry who hit Wiesehof. Plaintiff also signed an accident report stating that Henry was the cause of the accident. [438]*438Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 437, 945 N.Y.S.2d 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/machado-v-henry-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack