From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sorrentino v. Riemer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 13, 1998
252 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

July 13, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

In this automobile accident case involving a rear-end collision, after the defendants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff driver failed to proffer an adequate, non-negligent explanation for his failure to maintain a safe distance between his car and the defendants' truck, or raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants' alleged negligence was a proximate cause of his injuries ( see, Sass v. Ambu Trans, 238 A.D.2d 570; Barba v. Best Sec. Corp., 235 A.D.2d 381; Migdol v. Striker, 215 A.D.2d 358; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 Veh. Traf. [a]). Thus, the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

Bracken, J. P., Altman, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sorrentino v. Riemer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 13, 1998
252 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Sorrentino v. Riemer

Case Details

Full title:LUCIUS M. N. SORRENTINO, Respondent, v. ROBERT C. RIEMER et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jul 13, 1998

Citations

252 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 296

Citing Cases

Torres v. Pierpont

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff's rear-end…

Porcano v. Lehman

Porcano later died of unrelated causes. Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the verdict as to liability…