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.
Rochelle SILBER, et al., Appellants, v. MOTOROLA, INC., et al., Respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered April 30, 1999, which granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The driver of a Ford Explorer was using a cellular telephone manufactured by the defendant Motorola, Inc., while driving. As a result of a problem with the telephone cradle, which was manufactured by the defendant Magnadyne Corporation and installed by the defendant East End Car Care, Inc., individually and d/b/a Tidy Car, the driver of the Explorer became distracted and looked down towards the floor. In doing so, she took her eyes off the road. Her vehicle then crossed over into the opposing lane of traffic and struck a Toyota wagon driven by the plaintiff Rochelle Silber (hereinafter the plaintiff), and in which the remaining plaintiffs were passengers. After settling with the driver of the Explorer, the plaintiffs sued the defendants, and they separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The record showed that the defendants' actions were not a proximate cause of the accident and that, in any event, the actions of the Explorer's driver were a superseding cause of the plaintiffs' injuries. Since the defendants made out prima facie cases for summary judgment and the plaintiffs failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions (see, Egan v. A.J. Constr. Corp., 94 N.Y.2d 839, 702 N.Y.S.2d 574, 724 N.E.2d 366; Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 414 N.E.2d 666; Bennett v. Long Is. Light. Co., 262 A.D.2d 437, 692 N.Y.S.2d 144; Sorrentino v. Wild, 224 A.D.2d 607, 638 N.Y.S.2d 695; see generally, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: July 24, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)