From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fuller v. Blackbird

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 5, 1995
211 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

January 5, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Washington County (Dier, J.).


Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle owned by defendant Ida Fuller and driven by defendant Richard L. Blackbird. The vehicle was proceeding northbound on the Northway in the Town of Wilton, Saratoga County, on March 25, 1989. Blackbird was maintaining a speed of 55 miles per hour in the right lane when, at approximately 1:30 P.M. the vehicle was struck on the right-hand side by a vehicle being operated by defendant Henry J. Weinert. The Weinert vehicle was traveling faster than the Fuller vehicle, entered the breakdown lane, hit the guardrail and careened into the Fuller vehicle. The force of the impact drove the Fuller vehicle across the highway and left-hand lane into an abutment, where it was then struck by another vehicle. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for her injuries. Fuller and Blackbird sought summary judgment which was denied and, after deposing a nonparty witness, renewed the motion which was also denied.fn_ They appeal both orders.

Part of the opposition to the original motion included the need to depose a nonparty witness. When this was completed, the motion was renewed. That witness, a passenger in the Weinert vehicle, was asleep until the impact with the guardrail and was unable to provide any relevant information concerning the accident.

On the uncontroverted facts presented here, no liability can be imposed on Fuller and Blackbird (see, Roman v. Vargas, 182 A.D.2d 543). The entire event occurred over a matter of seconds and there is no evidence whatsoever of fault or culpable conduct in reference to the operation of the Fuller vehicle (see, Gouchie v Gill, 198 A.D.2d 862; Cummins v. Rose, 185 A.D.2d 839; Morowitz v Naughton, 150 A.D.2d 536, 537; Viegas v. Esposito, 135 A.D.2d 708, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 801). Plaintiff's speculation that Fuller may have contributed to the accident by failing to maintain sufficient maneuvering space around his vehicle has no support in the record and is patently insufficient to defeat the motion (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; see also, McKenney v. Orzechowski, 208 A.D.2d 1149; Cohen v. Masten, 203 A.D.2d 774).

Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, summary judgment awarded to defendants Richard L. Blackbird and Ida Fuller, and complaint dismissed against them.


Summaries of

Fuller v. Blackbird

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 5, 1995
211 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Fuller v. Blackbird

Case Details

Full title:MARIE FULLER, Respondent, v. RICHARD L. BLACKBIRD et al., Appellants, et…

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

Date published: Jan 5, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
621 N.Y.S.2d 208

Citing Cases

Wilke v. Price

Similarly, plaintiff testified that she only caught a glimpse of the Price vehicle once it began to make its…

Romero v. Morales

Here, the record clearly shows that Belezynski was negligent in admittedly crossing into the path of Ms.…