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.
Christopher HEAL and Paula Heal, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Kent LISZEWSKI, Defendant-Respondent, Kenneth Creasey and Heinrich Chevrolet, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Christopher Heal (plaintiff) while a passenger in a vehicle owned by Heinrich Chevrolet, Inc. and driven by Kenneth Creasey (defendants). Creasey stopped his vehicle at an intersection at a stop sign, then moved forward, but then stopped again, whereupon a vehicle driven by defendant Kent Liszewski rear-ended Creasey's vehicle. Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them. Defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that Creasey was not negligent and thus failed to meet their initial burden on the motion (see Jones v. Egan, 252 A.D.2d 909, 910-911, 676 N.Y.S.2d 305; DeCosmo v. Hulse, 204 A.D.2d 953, 955, 612 N.Y.S.2d 279; see generally Niemiec v. Jones, 237 A.D.2d 267, 268, 654 N.Y.S.2d 163; Migdol v. Striker, 215 A.D.2d 358, 626 N.Y.S.2d 963). The fact that Liszewski's negligence also may have been a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries does not necessarily absolve defendants of liability inasmuch as an accident may have more than one proximate cause (see Argentina v. Emery World Wide Delivery Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 554, 560 n. 2, 693 N.Y.S.2d 493, 715 N.E.2d 495; Doctor v. Juliana, 277 A.D.2d 1013, 1014, 716 N.Y.S.2d 196). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their initial burden, we conclude that Liszewski and plaintiffs raised issues of fact concerning the negligence of Creasey (see Jones, 252 A.D.2d at 911, 676 N.Y.S.2d 305; DeCosmo, 204 A.D.2d at 955, 612 N.Y.S.2d 279; cf. Mascitti v. Greene, 250 A.D.2d 821, 822, 673 N.Y.S.2d 206).
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!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 03, 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)