From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muller-St-Cyr v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
May 13, 2021
194 A.D.3d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

13829 Index No. 451113/16E Case No. 2020-03545

05-13-2021

MULLER–ST–CYR, Jr., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Elefterakis, Elefterakis & Panek, New York (Michael S. Marron of counsel), for appellant. Barry Montrose, P.C., New York (Barry Montrose of counsel), for respondents.


Elefterakis, Elefterakis & Panek, New York (Michael S. Marron of counsel), for appellant.

Barry Montrose, P.C., New York (Barry Montrose of counsel), for respondents.

Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ.

J.), entered on or about January 28, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants New York City Transit Authority, New York City Transit Authority Division of Paratransit, Maggies Paratransit Corp. and Sasha Jacquelyn Barclift's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established prima facie that the collision between their van and plaintiff's vehicle was caused by plaintiff, who improperly pulled his vehicle into a bus stop and up to a red traffic light next to their stationary van, on a roadway that was designated for one lane of moving traffic, and failed to yield the right of way to the van when the light changed (see Martinez v. Cofer, 128 A.D.3d 421, 8 N.Y.S.3d 212 [1st Dept. 2015] ). Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition.

Plaintiff waived his hearsay objections to the photographs submitted by defendants by failing to object before the motion court and, further, by relying on them in support of his own motion (see Thompson–Shepard v. Lido Hall Condominiums, 168 A.D.3d 614, 92 N.Y.S.3d 33 [1st Dept. 2019] ).

In view of the foregoing, plaintiff's appeal from the denial of his motion to amend is moot.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Muller-St-Cyr v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
May 13, 2021
194 A.D.3d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Muller-St-Cyr v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Case Details

Full title:Muller-St-Cyr, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. New York City Transit…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: May 13, 2021

Citations

194 A.D.3d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
150 N.Y.S.3d 1
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 3118

Citing Cases

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (N.Y.), L.P.

When "a party raises a legal issue for the first time on appeal, as long as the issue is determinative and…

McQueen v. The City of New York

The Court notes Plaintiffs waived any hearsay objection to the officers' statements since they submitted the…