Martin v. Savage

299 A.D.2d 903, 750 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10966
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 903 (Martin v. Savage) 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
Martin v. Savage, 299 A.D.2d 903, 750 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Sconiers, J.), entered July 25, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.

[904]*904Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained when the pickup truck driven by defendant and in which she was a passenger was rear-ended by an automobile. Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of the motion, defendant established that he had come to a gradual stop and remained stopped at a red light for approximately 30 seconds when his pickup truck was rear-ended, thereby establishing as a matter of law that he was not negligent (see Rubin v Universal Ford, 250 AD2d 749, 750; Yusupov v Supreme Carrier Corp., 240 AD2d 660; Barnes v Lee, 158 AD2d 414). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant was negligent (see Ruzycki v Baker, 301 AD2d 48). The affidavit of plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion “clearly constituted an attempt to avoid the consequences of [her] prior deposition testimony by raising feigned issues of fact, and was insufficient to avoid summary judgment” (Shpizel v Reo Realty & Constr. Co., 288 AD2d 291, 291). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

Carlson v. Manning
208 A.D.3d 997 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Chrisman v. Syracuse Soma Project, LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 01663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
DERMODY, BRIAN S. v. TILTON, DARRYL D.
85 A.D.3d 1682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Taillie v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.
68 A.D.3d 1808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Dietzen v. Aldi Inc.
57 A.D.3d 1514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Stickney v. Alleca
52 A.D.3d 1214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Sales Strategies Group, Inc. v. Fenton
16 Misc. 3d 171 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Schuster v. Dukarm
38 A.D.3d 1358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Mega Personal Lines, Inc. v. Halton
9 A.D.3d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 A.D.2d 903, 750 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-savage-nyappdiv-2002.