From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jennings v. Schilling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 1994
202 A.D.2d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 28, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On February 3, 1985, at 2:50 A.M., the defendant Annette Vallone drove a pickup truck owned by the defendant Gerard Radcliffe northbound in the outer right lane of Lakeland Avenue, which was covered with snow and slush, in the Town of Islip in Suffolk County. Heading in the opposite direction was a Ford Mustang in which the plaintiff was a passenger. Vallone saw the Mustang move to its left, apparently attempting to pass a Plymouth Duster driven by the defendant Michael Schilling. Vallone stated that she saw the Mustang make a complete revolution and that it continued to spin before the Mustang hit her truck. Evidence was adduced that the Mustang moved towards Vallone for some amount of time and spun for approximately 300 feet prior to impact.

It is well-settled that the summary judgment movant must establish his defense or cause of action sufficiently to warrant a court's grant of judgment in his favor as a matter of law (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The initial burden in a motion for summary judgment is on the movant to establish by means of admissible evidence his or her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see, McCormack v. Graphic Mach. Servs., 139 A.D.2d 631, 632). Because evidence was adduced that the pickup truck gradually slowed down, that Vallone lightly stepped on the brake, and that she slightly turned the steering wheel to the right three to five seconds before impact, there is an issue of fact as to whether Vallone acted negligently in failing to avoid the collision. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of the defendants Vallone and Radcliffe for summary judgment.

No evidence was adduced which demonstrated that Michael Schilling had anything to do with the happening of the accident. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him. Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jennings v. Schilling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 1994
202 A.D.2d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Jennings v. Schilling

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTIN JENNINGS, Respondent-Appellant, v. ROBERT M. SCHILLING et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 28, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 312

Citing Cases

Youthkins v. Cascio

Furthermore, in a case such as this involving a death, the plaintiff is not held to the high degree of proof…

Shelley v. Bodian

Mark Stern Affidavit, 2/7/08, paragraphs 3 and 4. At best, these affirmative defenses might raise triable…