Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Raymond J. DZIEDZIC, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Martha Dziedzic, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Foster H. THAYER, Defendant-Respondent, Dennis J. Stack, United Cerebral Palsy Association of Western New York, Inc., Virginia Purcell, as Executive Director of United Cerebral Palsy Association of Western New York, Inc., United Cerebral Palsy Association, Inc., Michael Morris, as Executive Director of United Cerebral Palsy Association, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.)
Katherine Dziedzic, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Foster H. Thayer, Defendant-Respondent, Dennis J. Stack, United Cerebral Palsy Association of Western New York, Inc., Virginia Purcell, as Executive Director of United Cerebral Palsy Association of Western New York, Inc., United Cerebral Palsy Association, Inc., Michael Morris, as Executive Director of United Cerebral Palsy Association, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
This appeal arises from a five-vehicle accident in which Martha Dziedzic was killed and plaintiff Katherine Dziedzic was injured. The Dziedzic vehicle was initially rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant Foster H. Thayer, causing the Dziedzic vehicle to be involved in a further collision. Contrary to the contention of Dennis J. Stack, United Cerebral Palsy Association of Western New York, Inc., Virginia Purcell, United Cerebral Palsy Association, Inc. (UCPA) and Michael Morris (defendants), Supreme Court properly denied their cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint in each action against them. In support of their cross motion, defendants submitted Thayer's deposition testimony in which Thayer testified that Stack's vehicle was moving from side to side in the curb lane and had come partly into the passing lane as Thayer was attempting to pass Stack's vehicle. In addition, Thayer testified that he was concerned that he would be forced into oncoming traffic. Defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that Stack was not negligent in the operation of his vehicle (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1122[b]; § 1128[a]; see also, 8B N.Y. Jur.2d, Automobiles, § 956) or that Stack's conduct in allegedly distracting Thayer was not a proximate cause of the accident (see, Sartori v. Gregoire, 259 A.D.2d 1004, 688 N.Y.S.2d 295).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 15, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)