Opinion
13386, 109491/11.
10-30-2014
George DeHOYOS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, MTA Capital Construction Company, Defendant–Respondent.
Franzblau Dratch, P.C., New York (Brian M. Dratch of counsel), for appellant. Amabile & Erman, P.C., Staten Island (Nicholas J. Loiacono of counsel), for respondent.
Franzblau Dratch, P.C., New York (Brian M. Dratch of counsel), for appellant.
Amabile & Erman, P.C., Staten Island (Nicholas J. Loiacono of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., SWEENY, ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, JJ.
Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered May 7, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant MTA Capital Construction Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Plaintiff testified that as he was cycling south on Second Avenue in Manhattan a passenger in a double-parked livery cab opened the cab door directly into his path, whereupon he veered into the adjacent traffic lane and was hit by another vehicle. Plaintiff's contention that MTA's construction activities along Second Avenue obstructed his view of the cab until he was about 15 feet from it, and that if he had seen the cab from a greater distance the accident could have been avoided, is belied by his testimony that the cab door opened just as he was about to pass the cab. The opening of the cab door interrupted the nexus between any possible negligence on MTA's part and plaintiff's injuries and relieves MTA of any liability (see Kush v. City of Buffalo, 59 N.Y.2d 26, 462 N.Y.S.2d 831, 449 N.E.2d 725 [1983] ; Hoenig v. Park Royal Owners, 249 A.D.2d 57, 671 N.Y.S.2d 55 [1st Dept.1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 811, 680 N.Y.S.2d 457, 703 N.E.2d 269 [1998] ).
Plaintiff's speculative request for additional discovery to determine if there were other possible causes of the accident is insufficient to defeat the motion (Flores v. City of New York, 66 A.D.3d 599, 600, 888 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept.2009] ).