From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Medina-Ortiz v. Seda

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 11, 2018
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

5429 Index 22159/17E

01-11-2018

Elsa MEDINA–ORTIZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Luis A. SEDA, Defendant–Respondent.

Hausman & Pendzick, Harrison (Alan R. Gray, Jr. of counsel), for appellant. Russo & Tambasco, Melville (Yamille Al–Sullami of counsel), for respondent.


Hausman & Pendzick, Harrison (Alan R. Gray, Jr. of counsel), for appellant.

Russo & Tambasco, Melville (Yamille Al–Sullami of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet–Daniels, Kahn, Kern, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered July 21, 2017, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of her entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability through her affidavit averring that her car was stopped when it was hit in the rear by defendant's car (see e.g. Cruz v. Lise, 123 A.D.3d 514, 999 N.Y.S.2d 41 [1st Dept.2014] ). The burden then shifted to defendant "to come forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the accident" ( Cabrera v. Rodriguez, 72 A.D.3d 553, 553, 900 N.Y.S.2d 29 [1st Dept. 2010] ).

Defendant met his burden through his affidavit averring that, after he exited onto Bruckner Boulevard, a service road, he saw plaintiff's car stopped in the middle lane, and then suddenly begin backing up, thereby "causing the accident." Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to defendant, and giving him the benefit of every available inference in his favor as the nonmoving party on this summary judgment motion (De Lourdes Torres v. Jones, 26 N.Y.3d 742, 763, 27 N.Y.S.3d 468, 47 N.E.3d 747 [2016] ), the record would permit a factfinder to conclude that plaintiff was negligent, and that her negligence was the sole or a proximate cause of the accident. Thus, the court properly concluded that the parties' differing versions of how the accident occurred precluded summary judgment (see Susino v. Panzer, 127 A.D.3d 523, 524, 7 N.Y.S.3d 120 [1st Dept. 2015] ; DeRosa v. Valentino, 14 A.D.3d 448, 788 N.Y.S.2d 369 [1st Dept. 2005] ).


Summaries of

Medina-Ortiz v. Seda

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 11, 2018
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Medina-Ortiz v. Seda

Case Details

Full title:Elsa MEDINA–ORTIZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Luis A. SEDA…

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

Date published: Jan 11, 2018

Citations

2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 227

Citing Cases

Venezia v. LTS 711 11th Ave.

Evidence may be said to be incredible as a matter of law when it "is demonstrably false ... [or] contradicts…

Salcedo v. City of N.Y.

The motion court properly declined to consider the results of Salcedo's polygraph, which found no indications…