Matias v. Blaha

272 A.D.2d 591, 707 N.Y.S.2d 686, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6056

This text of 272 A.D.2d 591 (Matias v. Blaha) 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
Matias v. Blaha, 272 A.D.2d 591, 707 N.Y.S.2d 686, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated June 16, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendants Kathleen T. Blaha and SAS Taxi Co., Inc., for sum[592]*592mary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against them, and dismissed the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Kathleen T. Blaha was the operator of a car involved in a three-car collision on the Grand Central Parkway in Queens. Blaha came to a gradual stop when she noticed an accident ahead of her. The car operated by the defendant Charles M. Smith, which was following Blaha’s car, came to a full stop before it was struck by the plaintiffs’ car and propelled into Blaha’s car. The plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence in admissible form to substantiate their claim that Blaha had stopped negligently (see, Brant v Senatobia Operating Corp., 269 AD2d 483; Levine v Taylor, 268 AD2d 566; Baron v Murray, 268 AD2d 495; Ner v Celis, 245 AD2d 278; Leal v Wolff, 224 AD2d 392). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, any purported negligence on the part of Blaha was not a proximate cause of the collision (see, McNeill v Sandiford, 210 AD2d 467; Shenloogian v Pressimone, 248 AD2d 374; Ner v Celis, 245 AD2d 278, supra; Yusupov v Supreme Carrier Corp., 240 AD2d 660). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Leal v. Wolff
224 A.D.2d 392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Yusupov v. Supreme Carrier Corp.
240 A.D.2d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Ner v. Celis
245 A.D.2d 278 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Shenloogian v. Pressimone
248 A.D.2d 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Baron v. Murray
268 A.D.2d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Levine v. Taylor
268 A.D.2d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Brant v. Senatobia Operating Corp.
269 A.D.2d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 A.D.2d 591, 707 N.Y.S.2d 686, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matias-v-blaha-nyappdiv-2000.