Stern v. Amboy Bus Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stern v. Amboy Bus Co.

102 A.D.3d 763, 957 N.Y.S.2d 894

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.3d 763 (Stern v. Amboy 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

Stern v. Amboy Bus Co., 102 A.D.3d 763, 957 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 16, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The evidence submitted in support of the motion did not establish that the plaintiff driver was free from comparative fault, and that the defendant driver’s alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Reyes v Marchese, 96 AD3d 926, 927 [2012]; Simmons v Canady, 95 AD3d 1201, 1203 [2012]; Matamoro v City of New York, 94 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2012]). In light of the plaintiffs’ failure to meet their prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Austin, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 16, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The evidence submitted in support of the motion did not establish that the plaintiff driver was free from comparative fault, and that the defendant driver’s alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Reyes v Marchese, 96 AD3d 926, 927 [2012]; Simmons v Canady, 95 AD3d 1201, 1203 [2012]; Matamoro v City of New York, 94 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2012]). In light of the plaintiffs’ failure to meet their prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.3d 763, 957 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-amboy-bus-co-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack