Stevenson v. Stockslager

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stevenson v. Stockslager

33 A.D.3d 690, 821 N.Y.S.2d 917

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 10, 2006·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J), dated January 4, 2006, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Pursuant to the unambiguous language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c (8), the appellant[s] [are] expressly precluded from seeking to defend against liability based upon the claim that the children were not [wearing safety belts or] strapped in . . . child-car seats at the time of the accident” (Boyd v Trent, 297 AD2d 301, 302 [2002]; see General Obligations Law § 3-111; Spier v Barker, 35 NY2d 444 [1974]; Martinez v Novin, 303 AD2d 653 [2003]). Accordingly, there being no issue of fact raised in opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie establishment of their right to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court [691]*691properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see CPLR 3212). Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, 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, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J), dated January 4, 2006, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Pursuant to the unambiguous language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c (8), the appellant[s] [are] expressly precluded from seeking to defend against liability based upon the claim that the children were not [wearing safety belts or] strapped in . . . child-car seats at the time of the accident” (Boyd v Trent, 297 AD2d 301, 302 [2002]; see General Obligations Law § 3-111; Spier v Barker, 35 NY2d 444 [1974]; Martinez v Novin, 303 AD2d 653 [2003]). Accordingly, there being no issue of fact raised in opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie establishment of their right to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court [691]*691properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see CPLR 3212). Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Stevenson v. Stockslager, 33 A.D.3d 690, 821 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

33 A.D.3d 690 (Stevenson v. Stockslager) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related