From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas M. Gerrity v. Abdul-Malik

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 19, 2006
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6483 (N.Y. 2006)

Opinion

No. 173 SSM 25.

Decided September 19, 2006.

APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered April 28, 2006. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), which had granted motions by defendants Leprechaun Lines, Inc. and the City of Buffalo and the cross motion by defendant County of Erie/Erie Community College for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross claims against them.

Plaintiffs commenced this personal injury action to recover damages for injuries the injured plaintiff sustained when a motor vehicle ran a red light and struck the bus he was operating, causing the bus to collide with a parked bus owned by defendant Leprechaun Lines, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that a proximate cause of the accident was the illegal parking of defendant's bus.

Gerrity v. Muthana, 28 AD3d 1063, affirmed.

Reden O'Donnell, Buffalo ( Joseph E. O'Donnell of counsel), for appellants.

Walsh, Roberts Grace, Buffalo ( Thomas E. Roberts of counsel), for Leprechaun Lines, Inc., respondent.

Alisa A. Lukasiewicz, Corporation Counsel, Buffalo ( Lisa M. Yaeger of counsel), for City of Buffalo, respondent.

Lippman O'Connor, Buffalo ( Robert M. Lippman of counsel), for County of Erie, respondent.

Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSEN-BLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.


OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Even assuming that the location of the bus owned by defendant Leprechaun Lines, Inc. in the traffic lane at the time of the accident resulted, in some respect, from negligence on the part of Leprechaun, the City of Buffalo or the County of Erie Community College as plaintiffs allege, these defendants were nonetheless entitled to summary judgment because they established, as a matter of law, that the alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries ( see Sheehan v City of New York, 40 NY2d 496, 503).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Thomas M. Gerrity v. Abdul-Malik

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 19, 2006
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6483 (N.Y. 2006)
Case details for

Thomas M. Gerrity v. Abdul-Malik

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS M. GERRITY et al., Appellants, v. ABDUL-MALIK MUTHANA, Defendant…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Sep 19, 2006

Citations

2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6483 (N.Y. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6483
824 N.Y.S.2d 206
857 N.E.2d 527

Citing Cases

Hain v. Jamison

n some, the risk created by the original negligence was not the risk that materialized into harm; in other…

Vazquez v. Roldan

We reverse. Jimenez established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting…