Ortiz v. Fage USA Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Fage USA Corp.

69 A.D.3d 914, 893 N.Y.2d 270

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 914 (Ortiz v. Fage USA 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

Ortiz v. Fage USA Corp., 69 A.D.3d 914, 893 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

On the afternoon of March 5, 2007, a motor vehicle operated by the plaintiff Lucy Ortiz (hereinafter the plaintiff) on 26th Avenue in Queens was struck from behind by a truck owned by the defendant Fage USA Corp. and operated by the defendant Yerquin Mercedes. After joinder of issue, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by tendering the affidavit of the plaintiff and the deposition testimony of her passenger, Margoth Raigosa. Those individuals stated that the plaintiff had been at a complete stop for three or four seconds, when her vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendants’ motor vehicle. “A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie cáse of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the accident” (Arias v Rosario, 52 AD3d 551, 552 [2008]). In his affidavit which was submitted in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, Mercedes averred that, when the plaintiffs Lincoln automobile approached a stop sign at the intersection of 26th Avenue and Astoria Boulevard, a pickup truck traveling on Astoria Boulevard stopped and gave the plaintiff’s vehicle the right of way to pass through the intersection, but that the Lincoln “suddenly stopped.” The affidavit did not rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Ramirez v Konstanzer, 61 AD3d 837 [2009]). Furthermore, the defendants’ contentions regarding discovery were mere expressions of hope and speculation that a deposition of the plaintiff might disclose relevant information sufficient to defeat the motion (see Sanabria v Paduch, 61 AD3d 839 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

[915]*915The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

On the afternoon of March 5, 2007, a motor vehicle operated by the plaintiff Lucy Ortiz (hereinafter the plaintiff) on 26th Avenue in Queens was struck from behind by a truck owned by the defendant Fage USA Corp. and operated by the defendant Yerquin Mercedes. After joinder of issue, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by tendering the affidavit of the plaintiff and the deposition testimony of her passenger, Margoth Raigosa. Those individuals stated that the plaintiff had been at a complete stop for three or four seconds, when her vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendants’ motor vehicle. “A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie cáse of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the accident” (Arias v Rosario, 52 AD3d 551, 552 [2008]). In his affidavit which was submitted in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, Mercedes averred that, when the plaintiffs Lincoln automobile approached a stop sign at the intersection of 26th Avenue and Astoria Boulevard, a pickup truck traveling on Astoria Boulevard stopped and gave the plaintiff’s vehicle the right of way to pass through the intersection, but that the Lincoln “suddenly stopped.” The affidavit did not rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Ramirez v Konstanzer, 61 AD3d 837 [2009]). Furthermore, the defendants’ contentions regarding discovery were mere expressions of hope and speculation that a deposition of the plaintiff might disclose relevant information sufficient to defeat the motion (see Sanabria v Paduch, 61 AD3d 839 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

[915]*915The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 914, 893 N.Y.2d 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-fage-usa-corp-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack