Spence v. Kitchens

1 Citing case

  1. Konarski v. Vandyke

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4877 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants and affording them the benefit of every reasonable inference (see Esposito v Wright, 28 A.D.3d 1142, 1143 [4th Dept 2006]), we conclude that plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden on the motion (see Spence v Kitchens, 210 A.D.3d 1416, 1418-1419 [4th Dept 2022]; Murray v Sminkey, 200 A.D.3d 1705, 1706-1707 [4th Dept 2021]; Fayson v Rent-A-Center E., Inc., 166 A.D.3d 1569, 1569-1570 [4th Dept 2018]). Plaintiffs submitted plaintiff's deposition testimony and a police accident report supporting the conclusion that plaintiff's vehicle merged onto I-90 eastbound from the on-ramp and continued traveling in the rightmost lane at the speed limit of 55 miles per hour in a nonnegligent manner, at which point defendant's truck was initially behind plaintiff's vehicle, in the next lane over, moving at a slightly faster pace (i.e., in excess of the speed limit), before it arrived at a position such that, when defendant attempted to change lanes, the front of defendant's truck struck the front bumper and driver's door of plaintiff's vehicle (see Brown v Askew, 202 A.D.3d 1501, 1502-1503 [4th Dept 2022]).