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.
Romel Espinoza, appellant, v. Coco–Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., et al., respondents.
Argued—September 2, 2014
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 13, 2014, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In a personal injury action, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault (see Thoma v. Ronai, 82 N.Y.2d 736, 737; Gorenkoff v. Nagar, 120 AD3d 470; Pollack v. Margolin, 84 AD3d 1341, 1342), since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident (see Adobea v. Junel, 114 AD3d 818; Allen v. Echols, 88 AD3d 926).
Here, the plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting his affidavit, which demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant driver was negligent in suddenly pulling his vehicle out of a parking spot, without warning, into a lane of moving traffic, striking the plaintiff's vehicle, and that the defendant driver's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Calandra v. Dishotsky, 244 A.D.2d 376; see also Smalls v. Adams, 118 AD3d 693; Jacino v. Sugerman, 10 AD3d 593). In opposition, the defendants submitted the affidavit of the defendant driver, which provided a conflicting version of the facts surrounding the accident. Under these circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff was comparatively at fault (see generally Incle v. Byrne–Lowell, 115 AD3d 709; Singh v. Thomas, 113 AD3d 748; Ortiz v. Hub Truck Rental Corp., 82 AD3d 725; Anyanwu v. Johnson, 276 A.D.2d 572). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
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: 2014–05313 (Index No. 2959 /13)
Decided: October 01, 2014
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)