Rivera v. Gardillo

113 A.D.3d 667, 978 N.Y.2d 689
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 2014·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting a transcript of his deposition testimony, wherein he stated that he had been at a complete stop when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by the defendant Ivan O. Gardillo (see DeLouise v S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp., 75 AD3d 489 [2010]; Volpe v Limoncelli, 74 AD3d 795 [2010]; Staton v Ilic, 69 AD3d 606 [2010]; Lampkin v Chan, 68 AD3d 727 [2009]). However, in opposition to the motion, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact by preferring a nonnegligent explanation for the accident (see Briceno v Milbry, 16 AD3d 448 [2005]; Simpson v Eastman, 300 AD2d 647 [2002]; Artis v Jamaica Buses, 262 AD2d 511 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Rivera v. Gardillo, 113 A.D.3d 667, 978 N.Y.2d 689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

113 A.D.3d 667 (Rivera v. Gardillo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clements v. Giatas
2019 NY Slip Op 8987 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Lisetskiy v. Weiss
123 A.D.3d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
D'Agostino v. YRC, Inc.
120 A.D.3d 1291 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)