From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arumugam v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Summary

holding that trial court properly denied the defendant's partial summary judgment motion because his driving at an excessive speed while intoxicated presented a question of fact for the jury on the plaintiffs punitive damages claim

Summary of this case from Marcouk v. Farm Service and Supplies, Inc.

Opinion

November 13, 2000.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Summary Judgment.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, HAYES, SCUDDER AND KEHOE, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Murugan Arumugam (plaintiff) when he was struck by a vehicle operated by David M. Smith (defendant) and owned by defendant Rigidized Metals Corp. Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action, alleging negligence. "Although summary judgment is a drastic remedy and there is considerable reluctance to grant it in negligence actions, the motion should be granted when there is no genuine issue to be resolved at trial" ( McGraw v. Ranieri, 202 A.D.2d 725, 726). Plaintiffs established that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the loss of control of the vehicle by defendant resulting from his intoxication and excessive speed, and defendants failed to raise an issue of fact concerning proximate cause. Any negligence on the part of plaintiff "was not a proximate or legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries, but merely furnished the condition for the event's occurrence" ( Zulli v. Halleran, 198 A.D.2d 347, 348; see also, Hallett v. Akintola, 178 A.D.2d 744, 745).

The court also properly denied defendants' cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action, alleging gross negligence, recklessness and wanton conduct by defendant and seeking punitive damages. The record raises a triable issue of fact whether defendant's conduct was "so reckless or wantonly negligent as to be the equivalent of a conscious disregard of the rights of others" ( Rinaldo v. Mashayekhi, 185 A.D.2d 435, 436; see, Rahn v. Carkner, 241 A.D.2d 585, 586).


Summaries of

Arumugam v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

holding that trial court properly denied the defendant's partial summary judgment motion because his driving at an excessive speed while intoxicated presented a question of fact for the jury on the plaintiffs punitive damages claim

Summary of this case from Marcouk v. Farm Service and Supplies, Inc.
Case details for

Arumugam v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:MURUGAN ARUMUGAM AND LORI SCHRIVER-ARUMUGAM, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 13, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 518

Citing Cases

Volovar v. Catholic Health System of L.I.

With respect to the first and second causes of action alleging abandonment, it is clear from the record that…

Verost v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am. Inc.

As a matter of law, the Court also dismisses all claims brought against Defendant Nuttall (see, Thompson…