From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morales v. Cox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 8, 2010
74 A.D.3d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-08644.

June 8, 2010.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendants Marisa L. Cox and Susan T. Cox appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated July 8, 2009, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Richard T. Lau Associates, Jericho, N.Y. (Kathleen E. Fioretti of counsel), for appellants.

Goggins Palumbo, Mattituck, N.Y. (Anthony H. Palumbo of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Before: Santucci, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Austin, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Marisa L. Cox and Susan T. Cox for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them is granted.

The defendants Marisa L. Cox and Susan T. Cox (hereinafter together the appellants) made a prima facie showing that the plaintiffs decedent was negligent as a matter of law by establishing that the accident occurred when the plaintiffs decedent drove his vehicle across a double yellow line in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 (a) in an attempt to pass the Cox vehicle on the left and lost control of his vehicle ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 [a]). In opposition to the appellants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Marisa L. Cox contributed to the happening of the accident. Assuming, arguendo, that the Cox vehicle was negligently stopped in the roadway, the location of her vehicle merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident ( see generally Sheehan v City of New York, 40 NY2d 496; Whitehead v Reithoffer Shows, 304 AD2d 754; cf. Somersall v New York Tel. Co., 52 NY2d 157).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.


Summaries of

Morales v. Cox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 8, 2010
74 A.D.3d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Morales v. Cox

Case Details

Full title:LUIS R. MORALES, Respondent, v. MARISA L. COX et al., Appellants, and…

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

Date published: Jun 8, 2010

Citations

74 A.D.3d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4972
901 N.Y.S.2d 864

Citing Cases

Limperis v. Six Star Taxi Inc.

the conditions for the accident and were not proximate cause - "plaintiff saw (disabled) tractor trailer…

Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.

Hosp., 120 AD3d 453, 455; Fajardo v City of New York, 95 AD3d 820; Katanov v County of Nassau, 91 AD3d 723,…