From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Constantine v. Bernardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1997
239 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 27, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff Joan T. Constantine allegedly sustained injuries when her automobile collided with an automobile driven by the defendant Deborah Bernardo and owned by the defendant F. A. Bernardo (hereinafter collectively the Bernardos), at or near the intersection of Gardiners Avenue and Amber Lane, in Levittown, New York. In her complaint the plaintiff alleged that a sign owned by the defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (hereinafter Reynolds) obstructed the view of traffic on Gardiners Avenue, and, inter alia, that the negligent placement of the sign caused the accident. The Supreme Court granted the motion by Reynolds for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, stating that the sign had concededly been moved from its original position, and that Reynolds had neither knowledge nor notice of its placement at the time of the accident. The cross motion by the Bernardos for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to them was denied on the ground that issues of fact existed. We affirm.

The conduct of Reynolds in supplying an advertising sign which was thereafter moved by the defendant Neighborhood Deli from its original location to a location which allegedly blocked the plaintiff's view of Gardiners Avenue, only furnished the condition or occasion for the event which caused the accident and did not constitute one of the causes of the accident ( see, Margolin v. Friedman, 43 N.Y.2d 982, 983). Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Reynolds because it is undisputed that it did not place the sign in the location which allegedly blocked the plaintiff's view of Gardiners Avenue.

The questions of whether the appellant Deborah Bernardo, the driver of the car which collided with the plaintiff's car, was negligent and whether her negligence, if any, was a proximate cause of the accident, is a jury question ( see, Bagnato v. Romano, 179 A.D.2d 713). Accordingly, the cross motion by the Bernardos for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them was properly denied.

O'Brien, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Constantine v. Bernardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1997
239 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Constantine v. Bernardo

Case Details

Full title:JOAN T. CONSTANTINE, Appellant, v. DEBORAH BERNARDO et al., Appellants, et…

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

Date published: May 27, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 83

Citing Cases

Anton v. W. Manor Constr. Corp.

However, it is undisputed that plaintiff was injured by a cinder block that was dropped off the sixth floor…