ALMONTE v. RAYMOURS FURNITURE CO INC (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., and Jhon Ortiz appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cassandra A. Johnson, J.), dated March 27, 2024.  The order denied those defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a particular day in June 2019, a vehicle driven by the plaintiff on an expressway in Queens allegedly was struck by a truck.  The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries.  He alleged that the defendant Raymours Furniture Company, Inc. (hereinafter Raymours), controlled the truck that struck his vehicle.  The passengers in the plaintiff's vehicle commenced a related personal injury action.  Raymours and the defendant Jhon Ortiz (hereinafter together the moving defendants), who allegedly was driving the truck, moved in this action for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.  In an order dated March 27, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the moving defendants' motion.  The moving defendants appeal.

“[D]efendants moving for summary judgment in a negligence action arising out of an automobile accident have the burden of establishing, prima facie, that they were not at fault in the happening of the accident or that the alleged negligence of another person was the sole proximate cause of the accident” (Harrington v. Tucker, 238 A.D.3d 724, 725, 232 N.Y.S.3d 617 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted];  see Elusma v. Jackson, 186 A.D.3d 1326, 1327–1328, 130 N.Y.S.3d 500).  “A motion for summary judgment should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility” (Pokazanova v. Kellyman, 233 A.D.3d 952, 953, 225 N.Y.S.3d 284 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Schmitz v. Pinto, 220 A.D.3d 681, 681–682, 197 N.Y.S.3d 326).

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the submissions of the moving defendants, which included a transcript of the deposition testimony of the passengers in the plaintiff's vehicle, the plaintiff, and Ortiz, provided conflicting evidence as to the material facts surrounding the incident and, thus, failed to establish the moving defendants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Schmitz v. Pinto, 220 A.D.3d at 682, 197 N.Y.S.3d 326;  Elusma v. Jackson, 186 A.D.3d at 1328, 130 N.Y.S.3d 500).  Thus, the moving defendants failed to meet their initial burden demonstrating the absence of triable issues of fact regarding the cause of the incident, and the Supreme Court properly denied their motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).

The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, LOVE and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.