Simmons v. Bergh

13 Citing cases

  1. Montague v. Shun Lee Palace Rest., Inc.

    198 A.D.3d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact by offering a nonnegligent explanation for the accident (seeGuerrero, 135 A.D.3d at 636, 24 N.Y.S.3d 63 ). Plaintiff was not required to demonstrate either her own freedom from comparative negligence or that defendants’ negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident ( Simmons v. Bergh, 192 A.D.3d 547, 548, 140 N.Y.S.3d 703 [1st Dept. 2021] ). Plaintiff's detailed description of the accident provided ample evidence that defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.

  2. Montague v. Shun Lee Palace Rest.

    No. 2021-05668 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 19, 2021)

    Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of defendants' negligence by submitting their employee's testimony that while making food deliveries for defendants, he collided with pedestrian plaintiff while operating his bicycle in the wrong direction on a one-way street (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1127; Guerrero v Milla, 135 A.D.3d 635 [1st Dept 2016]). In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact by offering a nonnegligent explanation for the accident (see Guerrero, 135 A.D.3d at 636). Plaintiff was not required to demonstrate either her own freedom from comparative negligence or that defendants' negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident (Simmons v Bergh, 192 A.D.3d 547, 548 [1st Dept 2021]). Plaintiff's detailed description of the accident provided ample evidence that defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.

  3. Montague v. Shun Lee Palace Rest.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 5668 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact by offering a nonnegligent explanation for the accident (see Guerrero, 135 A.D.3d at 636). Plaintiff was not required to demonstrate either her own freedom from comparative negligence or that defendants' negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident (Simmons v Bergh, 192 A.D.3d 547, 548 [1st Dept 2021]). Plaintiff's detailed description of the accident provided ample evidence that defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.

  4. Moscinski v. Quadrum 38

    208 N.Y.S.3d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Defendants’ admitted failure to preserve the fire extinguisher constituted spoliation, and an adverse inference charge and preclusion against defendants was reasonable (see Gilchrist v. City of New York, 104 A.D.3d 425, 425–426, 961 N.Y.S.2d 70 [1st Dept. 2013]; Strong v. City of New York, 112 A.D.3d 15, 24, 973 N.Y.S.2d 152 [1st Dept. 2013]). Plaintiff was also not required to establish that defendants were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312, 320, 76 N.Y.S.3d 898, 101 N.E.3d 366 [2018]; Simmons v. Bergh, 192 A.D.3d 547, 548, 140 N.Y.S.3d 703 [1st Dept. 2021]).

  5. Moscinski v. Quadrum 38 LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 1781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Plaintiff was also not required to establish that defendants were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Rodriguez v City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312, 320 [2018]; Simmons v Bergh, 192 A.D.3d 547, 548 [1st Dept 2021]).

  6. Beityaaghoob v. Klein

    216 A.D.3d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, the record demonstrates that the road was flat, the weather was clear, and visibility was good. Further, the defendants' vehicle was traveling in the middle lane of three southbound lanes, when it made contact with the plaintiff who was crossing from the right side of the road, "giving the defendant driver ample time to notice plaintiff crossing the street" (Simmons v Bergh, 192 A.D.3d 547, 548; see Kruter v United Parcel Serv. Gen. Servs. Co., 210 A.D.3d at 672).

  7. Lee v. Barma Taxi Inc.

    2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 30514 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2025)

    Nor is she required to establish that defendant's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. (Simmons v Bergh, 192 A.D.3d 547 [1st Dept 2021]).

  8. Martinez v. Martinez

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33552 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    While a driver is negligent if he or she fails to see that which, through the proper use of one's senses, should have been seen (Allen v Echols, 88 A.D.3d 926, 927 [2d Dept 2011]), a plaintiff is not required to demonstrate the absence of fault on their part (Rodriguez v City of New York. 31 N.Y.3d 312 [2018]), nor are they required to establish that the defendant's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident (Simmons v Bergh, 192 A.D.3d 547 [1st Dept 2021]). Here, Defendant Martinez has raised an issue of fact as to whether his conduct was the sole cause of the accident.

  9. Dickey v. Mittman

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33388 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Nor is she required to establish that defendant's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. (Simmonsv Bergh, 192 A.D.3d 547 [1st Dept 2021]).

  10. Parsehian v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 31623 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Nor is she required to establish that defendant's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. (Simmonsv Bergh, 192 A.D.3d 547 ).