From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pinchevsky v. Lasher

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 4, 2015
125 A.D.3d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2015-02-4

Pusya PINCHEVSKY, respondent, v. William M. LASHER, et al., appellants.

Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joseph E. Donat, David B. Hamm, and Miriam Skolnik of counsel), for appellants. Berson & Budashewitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey A. Berson of counsel), for respondent.


Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joseph E. Donat, David B. Hamm, and Miriam Skolnik of counsel), for appellants. Berson & Budashewitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey A. Berson of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated May 28, 2014, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

As the plaintiff crossed Kings Highway at its intersection with Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn in the crosswalk, he was allegedly struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant William M. Lasher. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for the personal injuries he allegedly sustained, and moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

In opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his motion ( see Moreira v. M.K. Travel & Transp., Inc., 106 A.D.3d 965, 966 N.Y.S.2d 150; Buchinger v. Jazz Leasing Corp., 95 A.D.3d 1053, 944 N.Y.S.2d 316; Arazashvilli v. Executive Fleet Mgt., Corp., 90 A.D.3d 682, 934 N.Y.S.2d 341; Qamar v. Kanarek, 82 A.D.3d 860, 918 N.Y.S.2d 360), the defendants raised a triable issue of fact concerning how the accident occurred ( see Qi Sheng Lu v. World Wide Travel of Greater N.Y., Ltd., 111 A.D.3d 690, 974 N.Y.S.2d 547; Elefantis v. P.O.P. Displays, Inc., 44 A.D.3d 608, 843 N.Y.S.2d 359; Mosheyev v. Pilevsky, 283 A.D.2d 469, 725 N.Y.S.2d 206).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. SKELOS, J.P., DILLON, MILLER and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pinchevsky v. Lasher

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 4, 2015
125 A.D.3d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Pinchevsky v. Lasher

Case Details

Full title:Pusya PINCHEVSKY, respondent, v. William M. LASHER, et al., appellants.

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

Date published: Feb 4, 2015

Citations

125 A.D.3d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
125 A.D.3d 624
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 860

Citing Cases

Logan v. Apex Express, Inc.

In opposition, however, Apex and John Doe submitted the affidavit of Robert Guarino, who stated that he was…