Wiley v. ESI New York Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wiley v. ESI New York Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 8465, 156 A.D.3d 408, 64 N.Y.S.3d 526, 2017 WL 6001758

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2017

Docket5109

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8465 (Wiley v. ESI New York Inc.) 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

Wiley v. ESI New York Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 8465, 156 A.D.3d 408, 64 N.Y.S.3d 526, 2017 WL 6001758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2017, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied third-party defendant Verizon New York Inc. and second third-party defendant Granite Avenue Utility Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaints, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle he was driving collided with a truck owned by defendant ESI New York, Inc., and operated by defendant Krzysztof M. Hajnos. Defendants contend that the cause of the accident was Granite’s negligent performance of road work, pursuant to a contract with Verizon, which had left the road in a hazardous condition.

Verizon and Granite established prima facie that Granite’s road work was not a proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff testified that he was forced to stop abruptly when a truck cut him off and that the condition of the road was smooth and did not impede his ability to control his dirt bike. Hajnos, the driver of the truck, testified that he saw no potholes or cracks or other defects in the road.

In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to the condition of the road (see Santiago v City of New York, 61 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2009]). None of their eyewitnesses said that they saw plaintiff’s motorcycle hit a defect in the road, and the police report, which described the accident in terms of “probably” and “likely,” is speculative (see id.). Moreover defendants’ expert failed to opine that the road condition was a factor in causing the accident. Defendants also failed to demonstrate that additional discovery could lead to evidence sufficient to defeat the motion (see CPLR 3212 [f]).

Concur— Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Oing and Moulton, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2017, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied third-party defendant Verizon New York Inc. and second third-party defendant Granite Avenue Utility Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaints, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle he was driving collided with a truck owned by defendant ESI New York, Inc., and operated by defendant Krzysztof M. Hajnos. Defendants contend that the cause of the accident was Granite’s negligent performance of road work, pursuant to a contract with Verizon, which had left the road in a hazardous condition.

Verizon and Granite established prima facie that Granite’s road work was not a proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff testified that he was forced to stop abruptly when a truck cut him off and that the condition of the road was smooth and did not impede his ability to control his dirt bike. Hajnos, the driver of the truck, testified that he saw no potholes or cracks or other defects in the road.

In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to the condition of the road (see Santiago v City of New York, 61 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2009]). None of their eyewitnesses said that they saw plaintiff’s motorcycle hit a defect in the road, and the police report, which described the accident in terms of “probably” and “likely,” is speculative (see id.). Moreover defendants’ expert failed to opine that the road condition was a factor in causing the accident. Defendants also failed to demonstrate that additional discovery could lead to evidence sufficient to defeat the motion (see CPLR 3212 [f]).

Concur— Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Oing and Moulton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8465, 156 A.D.3d 408, 64 N.Y.S.3d 526, 2017 WL 6001758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiley-v-esi-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack