Patella v. Yonkers Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patella v. Yonkers Contracting Co.

262 A.D.2d 471, 692 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6618

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 471 (Patella v. Yonkers Contracting Co.) 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

Patella v. Yonkers Contracting Co., 262 A.D.2d 471, 692 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, and the defendants Yonkers Contracting Company, Inc., and Weeks Marine, Inc., separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), entered May 5, 1998, as granted the motion of the defendant Henry Vass, as administrator of the estate of George Vass, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

[472]*472Ordered that the appeal by the defendants Yonkers Contracting Company, Inc., and Weeks Marine, Inc., is dismissed, as they are not aggrieved by the order appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiffs; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs, • payable by the plaintiffs.

George Vass, the decedent of the defendant Harry Vass, owned and operated a boat in which the injured plaintiff Louis Patella was a passenger. Patella sustained serious injuries when the boat hit a partially-submerged cable laid by the defendant construction contractors. Both Louis Patella and the other passenger in the boat at the time of the accident testified at their examinations before trial that George Vass was operating the boat safely, traveling at a reasonable speed, and maintaining a vigilant lookout. Moreover, it was undisputed that the cable was not visible because it was submerged and there were no signs posted to advise eastbound vessels that the channel was closed.

Testimony by the two eyewitnesses that the decedent George Vass had been prudent and vigilant in operating the vessel sufficiently established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on behalf of Harry Vass, shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY 320, 327). The plaintiffs’ speculative arguments that questions of fact might exist as to whether the boat was traveling at an excessive rate of speed, or whether the operator failed to keep a lookout were insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Mayorga v Reed-Prentice Packaging Mach. Co., 238 AD2d 483, 484; Otonoga v City of New York, 234 AD2d 592). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, and the defendants Yonkers Contracting Company, Inc., and Weeks Marine, Inc., separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), entered May 5, 1998, as granted the motion of the defendant Henry Vass, as administrator of the estate of George Vass, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

[472]*472Ordered that the appeal by the defendants Yonkers Contracting Company, Inc., and Weeks Marine, Inc., is dismissed, as they are not aggrieved by the order appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiffs; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs, • payable by the plaintiffs.

George Vass, the decedent of the defendant Harry Vass, owned and operated a boat in which the injured plaintiff Louis Patella was a passenger. Patella sustained serious injuries when the boat hit a partially-submerged cable laid by the defendant construction contractors. Both Louis Patella and the other passenger in the boat at the time of the accident testified at their examinations before trial that George Vass was operating the boat safely, traveling at a reasonable speed, and maintaining a vigilant lookout. Moreover, it was undisputed that the cable was not visible because it was submerged and there were no signs posted to advise eastbound vessels that the channel was closed.

Testimony by the two eyewitnesses that the decedent George Vass had been prudent and vigilant in operating the vessel sufficiently established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on behalf of Harry Vass, shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY 320, 327). The plaintiffs’ speculative arguments that questions of fact might exist as to whether the boat was traveling at an excessive rate of speed, or whether the operator failed to keep a lookout were insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Mayorga v Reed-Prentice Packaging Mach. Co., 238 AD2d 483, 484; Otonoga v City of New York, 234 AD2d 592). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 471, 692 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patella-v-yonkers-contracting-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack