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.
Angie GALITSIS-ORENGO, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MCL IMPORTS, et al., Appellants, Adaligisa Mejia, Defendant-Respondent (and another action).
In related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., M.C.L. Imports and Sai Loi Li appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated September 26, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the motion is denied.
The deposition testimony of the defendant Sai Loi Li sets forth a nonnegligent explanation for the collision between the front of the truck he operated and the rear of the car operated by the plaintiff Angie Galitsis-Orengo (see, Maxwell v. Lobenberg, 227 A.D.2d 598, 643 N.Y.S.2d 186; Glick v. Hittner & Sons, 111 A.D.2d 150, 489 N.Y.S.2d 8). Li testified that the vehicle owned and operated by Adalgisa Mejia crossed over two lanes of traffic as it was merging onto the westbound side of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway from the Long Island Expressway and cut in front of Galitsis-Orengo's car causing it to stop short. Under the circumstances of this case, there exists an issue of fact concerning the reasonableness of Li's conduct and his ability to avoid the collision (see, Kuci v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 88 N.Y.2d 923, 646 N.Y.S.2d 788, 669 N.E.2d 1110; Barber v. Young, 238 A.D.2d 822, 656 N.Y.S.2d 529; Varsi v. Stoll, 161 A.D.2d 590, 591, 555 N.Y.S.2d 169).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: June 01, 1998
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)