Chonda Maynard, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patti Vandyke, Defendant-Respondent. (2010)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Chonda Maynard, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patti Vandyke, Defendant-Respondent.

2035

Decided: January 26, 2010

Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.

The Sullivan Law Firm, New York (Timothy M. Sullivan of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Thomas K. Moore, White Plains (Howard T.Code of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered September 1, 2009, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, with leave to renew upon completion of depositions, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff's vehicle, while stopped at a traffic light, was struck in the rear by defendant's vehicle. In opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, defendant failed to raise a question of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent reason for the collision (see Mullen v. Rigor, 8 AD3d 104 [2004] ). Since defendant herself would be the party with knowledge of any such nonnegligent reasons, it does not avail her that her counsel had not yet received plaintiff's bill of particulars setting forth his claims in detail (Soto-Maroquin v. Mellet, 63 AD3d 449 [2009] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

CLERK

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network