Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rivera v. Corbett

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


January 26, 2010

JULISSA RIVERA, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LEONARD P. CORBETT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated November 19, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Leonard P. Corbett and Hope A. Riley which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, L. PRISCILLA HALL and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

(Index No. 28678/07)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Nelson DeJesus, Jr., collided with a vehicle owned by the defendant Leonard P. Corbett and operated by the defendant Hope A. Riley (hereinafter together the respondents). The injured plaintiffs were passengers in the DeJesus vehicle. As a result, the injured plaintiffs, and the parents of the infant plaintiffs, on behalf of their children and derivatively, commenced this action against the defendants.

The respondents established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that Riley was lawfully operating the Corbett vehicle within her own lane of traffic when the DeJesus vehicle entered into her lane of traffic and collided with the Corbett vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128[a]; Summers v Teddy Cab Corp., 50 AD3d 671; Shuman v Maller, 45 AD3d 566, 567; Jacino v Sugerman, 10 AD3d 593). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the comparative negligence of the respondents. The plaintiffs' contention that the motion was premature was without merit (see CPLR 3212[f]; Neryaev v Solon, 6 AD3d 510).

DILLON, J.P., FLORIO, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur.

20100126

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.