Opinion
499 CA 21-00548
08-04-2022
James BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Trenisa GILL, Joseph Miller, Allison L. Yuna and Christian Lynch, Defendants-Respondents.
HOGAN WILLIG PLLC, AMHERST (RYAN C. JOHNSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, ROCHESTER (NICHOLE M. AUSTIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT TRENISA GILL. CARMAN, CALLAHAN & INGHAM, LLP, FARMINGDALE (TRACY S. REIFER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT JOSEPH MILLER. CHELUS HERDZIK SPEYER & MONTE, P.C., BUFFALO (NICHOLAS M. HRICZKO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT ALLISON L. YUNA. OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL C. PRETSCH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT CHRISTIAN LYNCH.
HOGAN WILLIG PLLC, AMHERST (RYAN C. JOHNSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, ROCHESTER (NICHOLE M. AUSTIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT TRENISA GILL.
CARMAN, CALLAHAN & INGHAM, LLP, FARMINGDALE (TRACY S. REIFER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT JOSEPH MILLER.
CHELUS HERDZIK SPEYER & MONTE, P.C., BUFFALO (NICHOLAS M. HRICZKO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT ALLISON L. YUNA.
OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL C. PRETSCH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT CHRISTIAN LYNCH.
PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., NEMOYER, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motions and cross motions of defendant Allison L. Yuna and defendant Christian Lynch and reinstating the complaint and cross claims against those defendants, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this action to recover damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident involving five vehicles, plaintiff appeals from an order that, among other things, granted the motion of defendant Joseph Miller, the motion and cross motion of defendant Allison L. Yuna, and the motion and cross motion of defendant Christian Lynch, all seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, Miller met his initial burden on his motion, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Paterson v Sikorski , 118 A.D.3d 1330, 1331, 988 N.Y.S.2d 318 [4th Dept. 2014] ). Supreme Court therefore properly granted Miller's motion. We agree with plaintiff, however, that Lynch and Yuna failed to meet their initial burdens on their respective motions and cross motions (see Craig v. Haynos , 57 A.D.3d 1503, 1503, 870 N.Y.S.2d 653 [4th Dept. 2008] ; Owsian v. Cobo , 45 A.D.3d 1368, 1369, 846 N.Y.S.2d 824 [4th Dept. 2007] ; see also McMorrow v. Trimper , 149 A.D.2d 971, 972-973, 540 N.Y.S.2d 106 [4th Dept. 1989], affd for the reasons stated 74 N.Y.2d 830, 546 N.Y.S.2d 340, 545 N.E.2d 630 [1989] ; Burg v. Mosey , 126 A.D.3d 1522, 1523, 6 N.Y.S.3d 358 [4th Dept. 2015] ). The court thus erred in granting the motions and cross motions of Lynch and Yuna, and we modify the order accordingly.