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.
Luis R. Morales, etc., plaintiff-respondent, v. Marisa L. Cox, et al., appellants, Robert Ingrassia, et al., defendants-respondents.
Submitted-May 17, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendants Marisa L. Cox and Susan T. Cox appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated July 8, 2009, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Marisa L. Cox and Susan T. Cox for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them is granted.
The defendants Marisa L. Cox and Susan T. Cox (hereinafter together the appellants) made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff's decedent was negligent as a matter of law by establishing that the accident occurred when the plaintiff's decedent drove his vehicle across a double yellow line in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126(a) in an attempt to pass the Cox vehicle on the left and lost control of his vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126[a] ). In opposition to the appellants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Marisa L. Cox contributed to the happening of the accident. Assuming, arguendo, that the Cox vehicle was negligently stopped in the roadway, the location of her vehicle merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident (see generally Sheehan v. New York, 40 N.Y.2d 496; Whitehead v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc., 304 A.D.2d 754; cf. Somersall v. New York Tel. Co., 52 N.Y.2d 157).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
SANTUCCI, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, DICKERSON and AUSTIN, 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: 2009-08644 (Index No. 24871 /07)
Decided: June 08, 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)