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.
Immanuel Frazier, respondent, v. Hertz Vehicles, LLC, et al., appellants.
Argued-October 12, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Hertz Vehicles, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated January 27, 2009, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant Hardy Prosper separately appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as denied his separate motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The defendants met their respective burdens of establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the vehicle driven by the defendant Hardy Prosper and owned by the defendant Hertz Vehicles, LLC (hereinafter Hertz), was making a left turn from the center turning lane when it was struck in the rear by the plaintiff's vehicle (see Hughes v. Cai, 55 AD3d 675; Mohan v. Puthumana, 302 A.D.2d 437). In opposition, the plaintiff, who had no recollection of the accident, through the affidavit of a nonparty witness, raised triable issues of fact as to whether Prosper was negligent and thereby contributed to the happening of the accident (see Oguzturk v. General Elec. Co., 65 AD3d 1110; Mohan v. Puthumana, 302 A.D.2d 437). While an affidavit submitted in reply by Hertz from that same nonparty witness contradicted that witness's earlier affidavit in several respects, that did not render him incredible as a matter of law, but raised an issue as to his credibility to be resolved by the fact-finder (see Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 631; Rivera v. State of New York, 19 AD3d 1030, 1031). Accordingly, the separate motions of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them were properly denied.
SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
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: 2009-07956 (Index No. 16390 /05)
Decided: November 09, 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)