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.
Guy SAVALL, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant–Respondent, Rodney Campbell, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about September 27, 2018, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's motion was properly denied in this action for personal injuries sustained in a collision between defendants' bus and plaintiff's vehicle. Triable issues of fact exist as to how the accident occurred since plaintiff and defendant Campbell provided conflicting versions of the accident (see e.g. Hedian v. MTLR Corp., 169 A.D.3d 620, 92 N.Y.S.3d 880 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Plaintiff's argument that Campbell's version of the accident should be rejected because the affidavit he submitted was a self-serving attempt to defeat summary judgment is unavailing. The discrepancies in the affidavit and Campbell's deposition testimony cited by plaintiff are not so fundamental as to provide a basis for discrediting Campbell's version of the accident.
Furthermore, the motion court did not impose on plaintiff the burden to prove the absence of his own comparative fault (see Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312, 76 N.Y.S.3d 898, 101 N.E.3d 366 [2018] ). Rather, the court properly found plaintiff did not conclusively establish that Campbell was negligent. Campbell's version of the accident exonerated him and attributed the accident exclusively to plaintiff's negligence in trying to squeeze between the bus and the stopped cars at the intersection. Thus, it is not a question of whether plaintiff's conduct was also negligent, but there are triable issues of fact as to whether or not Campbell was negligent at all (see Ugarriza v. Schmeider, 46 N.Y.2d 471, 474, 414 N.Y.S.2d 304, 386 N.E.2d 1324 [1979] ).
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.
Docket No: 9670
Decided: June 20, 2019
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)