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.
Pedro Veras, et al., appellants, v. Dominick J. Vezza, et al., respondents.
Argued-December 3, 2009
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), entered August 15, 2008, which, sua sponte, vacated a prior order of the same court dated August 4, 2008, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and thereupon granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as was issued sua sponte is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered August 15, 2008, is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the order dated August 4, 2008, is reinstated.
The plaintiff Pedro Veras (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly was injured when he was struck by a motor vehicle owned by the defendant Dominick J. Vezza and operated by the defendant Kenneth Foti. After the plaintiffs commenced this action, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the accident was not proximately caused by any negligence on their part.
The plaintiff's deposition testimony, a transcript of which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, raised a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212[b] ) as to whether the defendant-driver was operating his vehicle at an excessive rate of speed immediately prior to the occurrence, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180, and, if so, whether that violation of the law was a proximate cause of the accident. Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 A.D.2d 320, 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have vacated its original order denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
COVELLO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2008-10296 (Index No. 18939 /06)
Decided: January 05, 2010
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)