Torres v. Kalmar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. Kalmar

136 A.D.3d 457, 24 N.Y.S.3d 625

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2016

Docket153 301796/12

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 457 (Torres v. Kalmar) 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

Torres v. Kalmar, 136 A.D.3d 457, 24 N.Y.S.3d 625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered April 15, 2015, which denied the motion of defendants Benedek L. Kalmar and Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff’s contention that defendants have improperly moved a second time for summary judgment relief without requisite leave of the court is unavailing. The court had denied defendants’ original summary judgment motion as “premature,” “with leave to renew,” pending completion of discovery (see e.g. Maggio v 24 W. 57 APF, LLC, 134 AD3d 621, 626 [1st Dept 2015]; Fernandez v Elemam, 25 AD3d 752, 753 [2d Dept 2006]).

As to the merits of the motion, defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that plaintiff’s vehicle struck the rear of the van defendant Kalmar was driving as he waited at a red light (see Padilla v Zulu Servs., Inc., 132 AD3d 522 [1st Dept 2015]). Defendant driver also testified that two uninvolved motor vehicles were directly ahead of his van, in the same traffic lane, and that such vehicles had indicated they would be making a lefthand turn once the light changed to green.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, together with sworn statements of an alleged witness to the accident, all to the effect that defendants’ van had suddenly stopped at the subject intersection despite a green light in its favor, and that traffic had been moving along at approximately 30 miles per hour, with plaintiff allowing an eight-foot buffer between her vehicle and the van just prior to the accident, failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the accident (see Dicturel v Dukureh, 71 AD3d 558 [1st Dept 2010]; Soto-Maroquin v Mellet, 63 AD3d *458 449 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered April 15, 2015, which denied the motion of defendants Benedek L. Kalmar and Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff’s contention that defendants have improperly moved a second time for summary judgment relief without requisite leave of the court is unavailing. The court had denied defendants’ original summary judgment motion as “premature,” “with leave to renew,” pending completion of discovery (see e.g. Maggio v 24 W. 57 APF, LLC, 134 AD3d 621, 626 [1st Dept 2015]; Fernandez v Elemam, 25 AD3d 752, 753 [2d Dept 2006]).

As to the merits of the motion, defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that plaintiff’s vehicle struck the rear of the van defendant Kalmar was driving as he waited at a red light (see Padilla v Zulu Servs., Inc., 132 AD3d 522 [1st Dept 2015]). Defendant driver also testified that two uninvolved motor vehicles were directly ahead of his van, in the same traffic lane, and that such vehicles had indicated they would be making a lefthand turn once the light changed to green.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, together with sworn statements of an alleged witness to the accident, all to the effect that defendants’ van had suddenly stopped at the subject intersection despite a green light in its favor, and that traffic had been moving along at approximately 30 miles per hour, with plaintiff allowing an eight-foot buffer between her vehicle and the van just prior to the accident, failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the accident (see Dicturel v Dukureh, 71 AD3d 558 [1st Dept 2010]; Soto-Maroquin v Mellet, 63 AD3d *458 449 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 457, 24 N.Y.S.3d 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-kalmar-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack