From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gray Line N.Y. Tours, Inc. v. Big Apple Moving & Storage, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 20, 2014
115 A.D.3d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-03-20

GRAY LINE NEW YORK TOURS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. BIG APPLE MOVING & STORAGE, INC., Defendant–Respondent, Salvador Skerret, Defendant. [And a Third–Party Action].

Law Offices of Christopher P. DiGiulio, P.C., New York (William Thymius of counsel), for appellants. Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for respondent.



Law Offices of Christopher P. DiGiulio, P.C., New York (William Thymius of counsel), for appellants. Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for respondent.
ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, FEINMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered September 6, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability in this action where plaintiffs' stopped tour bus was struck in the rear by a truck owned by defendant Big Apple Moving & Storage and driven by defendant Skerret, who was an employee of Big Apple ( see Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 10 N.Y.3d 906, 908, 861 N.Y.S.2d 610, 891 N.E.2d 726 [2008];Santana v. Tic–Tak Limo Corp., 106 A.D.3d 572, 573–574, 966 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.2013] ).

In opposition, Big Apple raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Skerret had permission to use the subject vehicle on a personal errand after business hours ( see Murdza v. Zimmerman, 99 N.Y.2d 375, 380–381, 756 N.Y.S.2d 505, 786 N.E.2d 440 [2003];Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388[1] ). Although Skerret stated that he was not required to obtain permission to use the truck for personal purposes, Big Apple's owner disputed this claim and stated that he never provided Skerret with permission to use the truck that day. Furthermore, Big Apple's dispatcher stated that she told Skerret not to use the truck that day because it was experiencing brake problems. Such conflicting testimony should be resolved by a trier of fact ( see Leon v. Citywide Towing, Inc., 111 A.D.3d 464, 974 N.Y.S.2d 448 [1st Dept.2013] ).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Gray Line N.Y. Tours, Inc. v. Big Apple Moving & Storage, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 20, 2014
115 A.D.3d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Gray Line N.Y. Tours, Inc. v. Big Apple Moving & Storage, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GRAY LINE NEW YORK TOURS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. BIG…

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

Date published: Mar 20, 2014

Citations

115 A.D.3d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
115 A.D.3d 570
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1839

Citing Cases

Gray Line N.Y. Tours, Inc. v. Big Apple Moving & Storage, Inc.

Brown v Two Exchange Plaza Partners, 146 AD2d 129, 140 (1Gray Line commenced this property damage action as a…