From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matusovskaya v. Valcourt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 2004
6 A.D.3d 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-05380.

Decided April 12, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Sarah Woodson appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated May 8, 2003, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.

Agen Stenz, Westbury, N.Y. (Stuart Kurland of counsel), for appellant.

Morris, Duffy, Alonso Faley, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Yolanda L. Himmelberger and Andrea M. Alonso of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

While negligence cases do not generally lend themselves to resolution by motion for summary judgment, such a motion will be granted where the unrefuted facts clearly point to the negligence of one or more of the other parties without any fault or culpable conduct on the part of the moving party, in this case, the appellant ( see LeGrand v. Primus Automotive Fin. Servs., 272 A.D.2d 450; Lazar v. Fea Leasing, 264 A.D.2d 818, 819; Ruotolo v. Ambu-Wagon, Inc., 206 A.D.2d 416; Morowitz v. Naughton, 150 A.D.2d 536). It is undisputed that the plaintiff's vehicle was involved in an initial impact with the vehicle of the defendant Joseph Valcourt and that the Valcourt vehicle thereafter collided with the appellant's vehicle. The appellant established as a matter of law that her vehicle did not come into contact with the plaintiff's vehicle, that she was not negligent, and that her vehicle did not cause the accident between the plaintiff's vehicle and Valcourt's vehicle. Accordingly, the appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her should have been granted (see LeGrand v. Primus Automotive Fin. Servs., supra; Lazar v. Fea Leasing, supra).

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matusovskaya v. Valcourt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 2004
6 A.D.3d 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Matusovskaya v. Valcourt

Case Details

Full title:YEKATERINA MATUSOVSKAYA, plaintiff-respondent, v. JOSEPH VALCOURT…

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

Date published: Apr 12, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 424

Citing Cases

Maginnis v. Galler

Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361, 362 N.Y.S.2d 131 [1974]; Matusovkaya v. Valcourt, 6 A.D.3d 507, 774 …