Russo v. Sabella Bus Co.

275 A.D.2d 660, 713 N.Y.S.2d 315, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9934
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 26, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 660 (Russo v. Sabella Bus 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
Russo v. Sabella Bus Co., 275 A.D.2d 660, 713 N.Y.S.2d 315, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered on or about July 2, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiffs vehicle rear-ended defendants’ vehicle* inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ disabled vehicle was stationary in the right lane of a highway when it was rear-ended by plaintiffs vehicle. Such circumstances create a presumption that the accident was due to plaintiffs fault (see, Mitchell v Gonzalez, 269 AD2d 250, 251), requiring him, in order to avoid dismissal of the action, to come forward with evidence that the accident was at least in part due to defendants’ fault. Plaintiff failed to come forward with any such evidence. His claim that his view of defendants’ vehicle was blocked by a vehicle in front of him, and that the collision occurred when the front vehicle suddenly made a lane change, does not in any way show that defendants were negligent (see, Hanak v Jani, 265 AD2d 453). Nor does it avail plaintiff to argue that defendants were negligent in failing to pull their disabled vehicle onto the shoulder of the parkway, purportedly in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1201 (a). Such argument is based on the opinion of plaintiffs expert that the driver of defendants’ vehicle had ample coasting distance to remove the bus from the right lane onto the shoulder of the road. Such opinion must be rejected as pure speculation absent any first-hand evidence of the speed at which defendants’ vehicle was moving at the time it became [661]*661disabled. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Pena v. Anokye
2018 NY Slip Op 2891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
ZBOCK, COLLEEN M. v. GIETZ, DANIEL B.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Zbock v. Gietz
145 A.D.3d 1521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Diliberto v. Barberich
94 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Askin v. City of New York
56 A.D.2d 394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Ricchiazzi v. Gray
5 A.D.3d 1085 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Soto v. New York City Transit Authority
295 A.D.2d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 A.D.2d 660, 713 N.Y.S.2d 315, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-sabella-bus-co-nyappdiv-2000.