Rivera v. Gardillo
This text of 113 A.D.3d 667 (Rivera v. Gardillo) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
113 A.D.3d 667, 978 N.Y.2d 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-gardillo-nyappdiv-2014.