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.
Audria CAMPBELL-LOPEZ, plaintiff-respondent, v. Dionisio DeJesus CRUZ, et al., defendants-respondents,
Kenny M. Harvey, et al., appellants. (Action No. 1) Kenny M. Harvey, plaintiff, v. Rides R Us, Inc., et al., defendants. (Action No. 2)
Jose Cruz, plaintiff, v. Dionisio DeJesus Cruz, et al., defendants-respondents, Kenny M. Harvey, et al., appellants. (Action No. 3)
In three related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, Kenny M. Harvey and Daphne E. Harvey, defendants in Action Nos. 1 and 3, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan J.), dated January 26, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims in Action Nos. 1 and 3 insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the appeal by the defendants Kenny M. Harvey and Daphne E. Harvey in Action No. 1 is dismissed as withdrawn, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties dated June 14, 2006; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with one bill of costs to the respondents.
This appeal involves a three-car accident which occurred at or near the intersection of Dumont Street and Howard Avenue in Brooklyn. The appellants contend that they were entitled to summary judgment in Action No. 3 because the negligence of the defendant Dionisio DeJesus Cruz in failing to yield the right-of-way was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
The appellants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). In this regard, although Cruz's direction of travel was controlled by a stop sign, there are triable issues of fact, inter alia, as to whether the appellants were free of negligence (see Romano v. 202 Corp., 305 A.D.2d 576, 577, 759 N.Y.S.2d 365; Hernandez v. Bestway Beer & Soda Distrib., 301 A.D.2d 381, 753 N.Y.S.2d 467). Accordingly, that branch of the appellants' motion which was for summary judgment in Action No. 3 was properly denied (see Bodner v. Greenwald, 296 A.D.2d 564, 745 N.Y.S.2d 711).
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 11, 2006
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)