From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reyes-Diaz v. Quest Diagnostic Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 10, 2014
123 A.D.3d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Summary

affirming judgment for plaintiff where defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 1128 and plaintiff was free from comparative fault

Summary of this case from Polanco v. United States

Opinion

12-10-2014

Franklin REYES–DIAZ, respondent, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTIC INCORPORATED, et al., appellants.

Furman, Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York, N.Y. (Thomas Combs of counsel), for appellants. Subin Associates, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Brooke Lombardi and Gregory T. Cerchione of counsel), for respondent.


Furman, Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York, N.Y. (Thomas Combs of counsel), for appellants.

Subin Associates, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Brooke Lombardi and Gregory T. Cerchione of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

Opinion In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated October 9, 2013, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle owned by the defendant Quest Diagnostic Incorporated and operated by the defendant Robert Caldwell. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries, and subsequently moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, contending that Caldwell's violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128(a) and 1163 was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion, and the defendants appeal.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that Caldwell violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128(a) and 1163 and that he was free from comparative fault (see Walker v. Patrix Trucking N.Y. Corp., 115 A.D.3d 943, 982 N.Y.S.2d 552 ; Ducie

v. Ippolito, 95 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 944 N.Y.S.2d 275 ). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.


Summaries of

Reyes-Diaz v. Quest Diagnostic Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 10, 2014
123 A.D.3d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

affirming judgment for plaintiff where defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 1128 and plaintiff was free from comparative fault

Summary of this case from Polanco v. United States
Case details for

Reyes-Diaz v. Quest Diagnostic Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Franklin REYES–DIAZ, respondent, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTIC INCORPORATED, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 10, 2014

Citations

123 A.D.3d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
999 N.Y.S.2d 98
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8621

Citing Cases

Voight v. Chan

ate that other drivers will obey traffic laws (see Kahn v. Maggies Paratransit Corp., 63 A.D.3d 792 [2d Dept.…

Sando v. Angilletta

Considering the undisputed deposition testimony of the parties, Defendant Karavee has met his burden of…