Morgan v. Candia

69 A.D.3d 500, 891 N.Y.2d 650

Opinion

The court properly accepted plaintiffs untimely papers in opposition to defendants’ motion, as defendants did not suffer any prejudice (see Matter of Jordan v City of New York, 38 AD3d 336, 338 [2007]; Dinnocenzo v Jordache Enters., 213 AD2d 219 [1995]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and allowing for the circumstance that he was unable to provide an explanation for the rear-collision accident, we find that plaintiff has not shown facts and conditions from which it may reasonably be inferred that defendants bore any fault for the accident (see Morales v Morales, 55 AD3d 306 [2008]; Somers v Condlin, 39 AD3d 289 [2007]; Black v Loomis, 236 AD2d 338 [1997]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.