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.

Avant v. Cepin Livery Corp.

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


June 10, 2010

NATALIE AVANT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CEPIN LIVERY CORP,, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, RAMON DEJESUS, DEFENDANT, CHARLENE RENEE HERRERA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered August 14, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of appellants dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as 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.

Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Moskowitz, Acosta, JJ.

305777/08

Plaintiff was a passenger in the backseat of defendant Cepin Livery Corp.'s vehicle when that vehicle struck the back of appellants' vehicle, which was stopped at a red light, before hitting another car; plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the accident. Under the circumstances, summary judgment in favor of appellants is warranted because when such a rear-end collision occurs, the owner and operator of the front vehicle are entitled to summary judgment on liability unless the driver of the following vehicle can provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Mullen v Rigor, 8 AD3d 104 [2004]; Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 271 [1999]). Here, the opposition failed to provide such a non-negligent explanation (see Grimes-Carrion v Carroll, 13 AD3d 125 [2004]).

Contrary to the finding of the motion court, depositions are not needed since the opponents of the motion had personal knowledge of the facts (cf. CPLR 3212[f]), and failed to meet their obligation of laying bare their proof and presenting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Morgan v New York Tel., 220 AD2d 728 [1995]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20100610

© 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.