Miller v. Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic

262 A.D.2d 373, 691 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6363
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 7, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 373 (Miller v. Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic) 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
Miller v. Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic, 262 A.D.2d 373, 691 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated September 10, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[374]*374Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when he was hit by a car owned by the defendant Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic and driven by the defendant Sister Marie Brady. The testimony of the only two nonparty eyewitnesses to the accident demonstrates that suddenly, and without any warning, the plaintiff walked or ran out from between a stopped bus and a parked taxi cab into Sister Brady’s lane of traffic, approximately 10 to 15 feet from her car, which was traveling about 20 to 25 miles per hour. There is no evidence that Sister Brady operated the car in a negligent manner, and it is uncontested that neither Sister Brady, nor the two eyewitnesses in her car, saw the plaintiff until one or two seconds before the car struck him.

In light of this evidence, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Rucker v Fifth Ave. Coach Lines, 15 NY2d 516, 517-518, cert denied 382 US 815; Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 261 AD2d 508; Brown v City of New York, 237 AD2d 398; Kiernan v Hendrick, 116 AD2d 779, 780-781). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tsohla v. New Way Circus Ctr. Inc
2025 NY Slip Op 50151(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Arango v. Sandhaus
203 A.D.3d 1002 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
You v. Pedro Teixeira, Inc.
S.D. New York, 2020
Rosa v. Scheiber
89 A.D.3d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Mancia v. Metropolitan Transit Authority Long Island Bus
14 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Sheppeard v. Murci
306 A.D.2d 268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Charles v. Ball
291 A.D.2d 367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Sae Hyun Kim v. Mirisis
286 A.D.2d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Johnson v. Lovett
285 A.D.2d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Cizek v. Aberbach
277 A.D.2d 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Wolf v. We Transport, Inc.
274 A.D.2d 514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D.2d 373, 691 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-sisters-of-the-order-of-st-dominic-nyappdiv-1999.