Mora v. Garcia

3 A.D.3d 478, 771 N.Y.S.2d 138
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 12, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 478 (Mora v. Garcia) 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
Mora v. Garcia, 3 A.D.3d 478, 771 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated March 7, 2003, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Ray A. Mojica and Spectacular Limo Service which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

[479]*479Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while he was a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by the defendant Shirley A. Garcia, which was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle operated by the defendant Ray A. Mojica and owned by the defendant Spectacular Limo Service. Mojica and Spectacular Limo Service demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that Garcia violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (c) when she attempted to make a left turn from the center lane of a roadway and crossed directly into the path of Mojica who was proceeding legally in the leftmost lane of traffic (see Rieman v Smith, 302 AD2d 510 [2003]; Sureda v Diamonti, 300 AD2d 572 [2002]). In opposition to the motion, the conclusory and speculative assertions of the plaintiff concerning Mojica’s speed and possible negligence were unsupported by any competent evidence and, therefore, did not raise a triable issue of fact (see Rieman v Smith, supra; Russo v Scibetti, 298 AD2d 514 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Mojica and Spectacular Limo Service (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Aguila v. Benitez
2017 NY Slip Op 8884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Exime v. Williams
45 A.D.3d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Shin Sook Jin v. Ki Y. Kwon
42 A.D.3d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
McCain v. Larosa
41 A.D.3d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Gelesko v. Levy
37 A.D.3d 528 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Hou-Ching Chou v. Wong
34 A.D.3d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Moreback v. Mesquita
17 A.D.3d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Trzepacz v. Jara
11 A.D.3d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Jacino v. Sugerman
10 A.D.3d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Meliarenne v. Prisco
9 A.D.3d 353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 A.D.3d 478, 771 N.Y.S.2d 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mora-v-garcia-nyappdiv-2004.