Shelton v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shelton v. Rivera

286 A.D.2d 587, 730 N.Y.S.2d 219, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8397

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 587 (Shelton v. Rivera) 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

Shelton v. Rivera, 286 A.D.2d 587, 730 N.Y.S.2d 219, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered May 5, 2000, which denied defendant Shelton’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint as against her.

This personal injury action arises from a rear-end collision in which the Rivera vehicle collided with the Shelton automobile. Although the Rivera defendants had the burden of overcoming a presumption of negligence since their vehicle was behind Shelton’s, they did not provide a non-negligent explanation sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Barba v Best Sec. Corp., 235 AD2d 381) and, as such, Shelton is entitled to summary judgment (Mitchell v Gonzalez, 269 AD2d 250; Diller v City of N. Y. Police Dept., 269 AD2d 143). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered May 5, 2000, which denied defendant Shelton’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint as against her.

This personal injury action arises from a rear-end collision in which the Rivera vehicle collided with the Shelton automobile. Although the Rivera defendants had the burden of overcoming a presumption of negligence since their vehicle was behind Shelton’s, they did not provide a non-negligent explanation sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Barba v Best Sec. Corp., 235 AD2d 381) and, as such, Shelton is entitled to summary judgment (Mitchell v Gonzalez, 269 AD2d 250; Diller v City of N. Y. Police Dept., 269 AD2d 143). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 587, 730 N.Y.S.2d 219, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelton-v-rivera-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack