Pragay v. Lavado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pragay v. Lavado

45 A.D.3d 828, 845 N.Y.S.2d 751

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 828 (Pragay v. Lavado) 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

Pragay v. Lavado, 45 A.D.3d 828, 845 N.Y.S.2d 751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated March 19, 2007, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1211 (a), a “driver of a vehicle shall not back the same unless such movement can be made with safety and without interfering with other traffic.” Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she was standing in a crosswalk waiting to cross the street when the defendant, who had been sitting in his parked vehicle, suddenly backed his car and struck her. In opposition to the plaintiffs motion, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see Ortiz v Calavera, 26 AD3d 319 [2006]; Garcia v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 10 AD3d 339 [2004]; Pressner v Serrano, 260 AD2d 458 [1999]). Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated March 19, 2007, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1211 (a), a “driver of a vehicle shall not back the same unless such movement can be made with safety and without interfering with other traffic.” Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she was standing in a crosswalk waiting to cross the street when the defendant, who had been sitting in his parked vehicle, suddenly backed his car and struck her. In opposition to the plaintiffs motion, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see Ortiz v Calavera, 26 AD3d 319 [2006]; Garcia v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 10 AD3d 339 [2004]; Pressner v Serrano, 260 AD2d 458 [1999]). Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 828, 845 N.Y.S.2d 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pragay-v-lavado-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack