From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gardella v. Foods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 18, 2011
80 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2010-02553.

January 18, 2011.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), dated December 21, 2009, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Weiss Rosenbloom, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Erik L. Gray of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Siegel, New York, N.Y. (Alfred T. Lewyn of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Dickerson, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). "There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident" ( Cox v Nunez, 23 AD3d 427, 427; see Topalis v Zwolski, 76 AD3d 524; Todd v Godek, 71 AD3d 872, 872). Under the circumstances here, even if the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1143 and 1211 (a), the bare affidavit of the plaintiff did not establish, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs freedom from comparative negligence ( see generally Cali v Mustafa, 68 AD3d 700, 701; cf. Sanabria v Paduch, 61 AD3d 839).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.


Summaries of

Gardella v. Foods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 18, 2011
80 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Gardella v. Foods

Case Details

Full title:JOHN P. GARDELLA, Appellant, v. ESPOSITO FOODS, INC., et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jan 18, 2011

Citations

80 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 351
914 N.Y.S.2d 678

Citing Cases

Winner v. Star Cruiser Transp., Inc.

We affirm. “There can be more than one proximate cause [of an accident] and, thus, the proponent of a summary…

Walsh v. Double N Equip. Rental Corp.

Thus, the deposition testimony submitted in support of the motion demonstrated that the subject motor vehicle…