From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Little v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 10, 1999
258 A.D.2d 899 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 10, 1999

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Elliott, J. — Summary Judgment.

Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant City of Syracuse (City) contends that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment because the action of defendant Florence Arnold in turning her vehicle left in front of the oncoming motorcycle driven by plaintiff Leo Owens was the sole proximate cause of the accident. We disagree. "Negligence cases by their very nature do not usually lend themselves to summary judgment, since often, even if all parties are in agreement as to the underlying facts, the very question of negligence is itself a question for jury determination" ( Ugarriza v. Schmieder, 46 N.Y.2d 471, 474). Moreover, issues of proximate cause are generally matters that are for the jury to resolve ( see, Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 314-315, rearg denied 52 N.Y.2d 784). Here, it cannot be said as a matter, of law that the City's alleged negligence in failing to place a center line along the entire length of Peat Street and in misaligning the partial center lines on the street was not a proximate cause of the accident.


Summaries of

Little v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 10, 1999
258 A.D.2d 899 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Little v. City of Syracuse

Case Details

Full title:JEROME LITTLE, Respondent, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, Appellant, and FLORENCE…

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

Date published: Feb 10, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 899 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 365