From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prine v. Santee

Court of Appeals of New York.
May 7, 2013
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3267 (N.Y. 2013)

Opinion

2013-05-7

Mark A. PRINE, Appellant, v. Adam M. SANTEE, Appellant, Simon M. Coal–Aloor, Defendant, Anna Torres, Respondent.

Magavern Magavern Grimm LLP, Buffalo (Edward J. Markarian of counsel), for Mark A. Prine, appellant. Chelus, Herdzik, Speyer & Monte, P.C., Buffalo (Katelyn E. Dieffenderfer and Scott R. Orndoff of counsel), for Adam M. Santee, appellant.


Magavern Magavern Grimm LLP, Buffalo (Edward J. Markarian of counsel), for Mark A. Prine, appellant. Chelus, Herdzik, Speyer & Monte, P.C., Buffalo (Katelyn E. Dieffenderfer and Scott R. Orndoff of counsel), for Adam M. Santee, appellant.
Law Office of Daniel R. Archilla, Buffalo (Jill Z. Florkowski of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff Mark A. Prine and defendant Adam M. Santee ( see e.g. Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 931, 932, 834 N.Y.S.2d 503, 866 N.E.2d 448 [2007] ), defendant Anna Torres demonstrated her entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against her. The nonmoving parties failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Torres's actions as the lead driver in this four-vehicle-chain-reaction accident constituted a contributing cause of the collision ( cf. Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 10 N.Y.3d 906, 907–908, 861 N.Y.S.2d 610, 891 N.E.2d 726 [2008] ).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and RIVERA concur.


Summaries of

Prine v. Santee

Court of Appeals of New York.
May 7, 2013
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3267 (N.Y. 2013)
Case details for

Prine v. Santee

Case Details

Full title:Mark A. PRINE, Appellant, v. Adam M. SANTEE, Appellant, Simon M…

Court:Court of Appeals of New York.

Date published: May 7, 2013

Citations

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3267 (N.Y. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3267
967 N.Y.S.2d 684
989 N.E.2d 966

Citing Cases

Tsui v. Chou

If such a showing has been made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to "produce evidentiary proof in…

Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Burlington Ins. Co.

Once the movants have made their showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to submit proof in…