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.
Venese CALABRESE, plaintiff-respondent, v. Dennis E. KENNEDY, et al., defendants-respondents, Lisa A. Paoluccio, appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Lisa A. Paoluccio appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Gigante, J.), dated April 13, 2005, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
In this action arising out of a rear-end automobile collision, the vehicle operated by the plaintiff came to a complete stop behind the stopped vehicle of the defendant Lisa A. Paoluccio without coming into contact with that vehicle. Thereafter, the plaintiff's vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by the defendant Janice L. Kennedy, and was propelled into the rear of the Paoluccio vehicle. The Supreme Court denied Paoluccio's motion for summary judgment, finding that questions of fact existed as to whether Paoluccio caused or contributed to the accident since she may have been stopped in front of the plaintiff in order to make a left turn in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1130(1). We reverse.
Since the plaintiff was able to safely bring her vehicle to a complete stop behind the Paoluccio vehicle prior to the accident, any purported negligence on the part of Paoluccio was not a proximate cause of the rear-end collisions or the plaintiff's injuries (see Good v. Atkins, 17 A.D.3d 315, 793 N.Y.S.2d 82; Lejkowski v. Siedlarz, 2 A.D.3d 791, 769 N.Y.S.2d 748; Elezovic v. Harrison, 292 A.D.2d 416, 739 N.Y.S.2d 410; Bournazos v. Malfitano, 275 A.D.2d 437, 713 N.Y.S.2d 75; McNeill v. Sandiford, 270 A.D.2d 467, 705 N.Y.S.2d 610; Chamberlin v. Suffolk County Labor Dept., 221 A.D.2d 580, 634 N.Y.S.2d 202). Accordingly, Paoluccio demonstrated her entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: April 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)