From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. Exel Logistics, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued November 3, 2000.

December 6, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Exel Logistics, Inc., Ruan Leasing Trust Company, and William Hammon appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated October 30, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young Yagerman Tarallo, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joseph A. Schwarzenberg and Mark Yagerman of counsel), for appellants.

Michael F. Mongelli II, P.C., Flushing, N.Y. (Edward J. Pavia, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

Before: WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff as the party opposing summary judgment, and giving her the benefit of every favorable inference (see, Sheryll v. L J Hairstylists of Plainview, 272 A.D.2d 603; Rockowitz v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 434), we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff raised issues of fact which preclude an award of summary judgment to the appellants. Moreover, the court also properly determined that the contemporaneous written and oral statements of an unidentified eyewitness, indicating that the appellants' truck struck the plaintiff's automobile, were admissible pursuant to the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561; People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729; People v. Gutierez, 248 A.D.2d 295; Fisch on N Y Evidence § 1002 [2d ed]; see also, Jones on Evidence, Civil and Criminal, § 28:25 [7th ed]; Cargill Inc. v. Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc., 71 F.3d 545, 555).


Summaries of

Perez v. Exel Logistics, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Perez v. Exel Logistics, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ESTRELLA PEREZ, RESPONDENT, v. EXEL LOGISTICS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 278

Citing Cases

Winson v. Coffin

Indeed, "[e]ven the color of a triable issue forecloses the remedy" ( In re Cuttitto Family Trust 1, 10 AD3d…

Vetere v. Afanasewicz

Issue finding, rather than issue determination, is the key to summary judgment (see In re Cuttitto Family…