Obiotta v. Dukes System Corp.

132 A.D.3d 421, 17 N.Y.S.3d 290
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 6, 2015
Docket15772 309033/09
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 421 (Obiotta v. Dukes System Corp.) 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
Obiotta v. Dukes System Corp., 132 A.D.3d 421, 17 N.Y.S.3d 290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered January 2, 2014, granting the motion of defendants Dukes System Corp. and Jesus Baello for leave to file a late motion for summary judgment and, upon doing so, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants acknowledged that their motion for summary judgment was filed 21 days after the expiration of the time period provided in CPLR 3212 (a) as a result of an error by their attorney in calendaring the deadline. The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding good cause for the delay based on the detailed affidavit by counsel concerning the error (see Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124, 128-129 [2000]).

The court also properly granted the motion for summary judgment. Defendant Baello, the driver of the truck, testified that his truck was stopped when the vehicle that was towing plaintiffs vehicle crossed the double yellow line into oncoming traffic, and swerved to avoid hitting his truck, causing plaintiffs vehicle to collide with the truck. In opposition, plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to defendants’ negligence. Contrary to plaintiff’s *422 argument, Baello’s alleged failure to take evasive action was not the proximate cause of the accident (see Garcia v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 10 AD3d 339, 340 [1st Dept 2004]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

ARCPE1, LLC v. Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 05397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Alam v. City of New York
174 N.Y.S.3d 838 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Stevens v. RX Med. Dynamics, LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 00816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.3d 421, 17 N.Y.S.3d 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obiotta-v-dukes-system-corp-nyappdiv-2015.