Morales v. Garzon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morales v. Garzon

120 A.D.3d 1126, 992 N.Y.S.2d 418

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2014

Docket301781/07 13006A 13006

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1126 (Morales v. Garzon) 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

Morales v. Garzon, 120 A.D.3d 1126, 992 N.Y.S.2d 418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered June 20, 2013, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 10, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Defendants established under any version of the facts that plaintiff was negligent, by demonstrating that, while under a darkened overpass, their tractor-trailer was struck in the rear by plaintiffs box truck. Elaintiff failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Avant v Cepin Livery Corp., 74 AD3d 533 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered June 20, 2013, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 10, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Defendants established under any version of the facts that plaintiff was negligent, by demonstrating that, while under a darkened overpass, their tractor-trailer was struck in the rear by plaintiffs box truck. Elaintiff failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Avant v Cepin Livery Corp., 74 AD3d 533 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1126, 992 N.Y.S.2d 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-garzon-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack