Summary
In Caro-Fortyz, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon facts similar to the fact here.
Summary of this case from J.E. v. CottoOpinion
2013-10-24
Weiner, Millo, Morgan & Bonanno, LLC, New York (Keith A. Nezowitz of counsel), for appellants. Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, Newburgh (Marie M. DuSault of counsel), for respondent.
Weiner, Millo, Morgan & Bonanno, LLC, New York (Keith A. Nezowitz of counsel), for appellants. Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, Newburgh (Marie M. DuSault of counsel), for respondent.
ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered March 6, 2013, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff pedestrian alleges that she was injured when, while crossing the street, she was hit by a truck driven and owned by defendants. Defendants submitted the deposition testimony of defendant driver stating that he was traveling straight in the left lane, at about five-to-seven miles per hour, and did not see plaintiff before the accident, as well as the deposition testimony of plaintiff stating that she got hit shortly after stepping out into the street from between two cars parked on the east side of the street. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she did not walk into the side of the moving truck.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.