Summary
affirming denial of summary judgment when defendant's submissions raised issues of material fact as to “whether he activated his turn signal and whether he came to an abrupt stop without warning prior to the accident”
Summary of this case from Haust v. United StatesOpinion
March 21, 2001.
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Summary Judgment.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, KEHOE, BURNS AND LAWTON, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The submissions of defendant in support of the motion raise triable issues of fact whether he activated his turn signal and whether he came to an abrupt stop without warning prior to the accident ( see, Weber v. Chapman, 238 A.D.2d 946; Silvestro v. Wartella, 224 A.D.2d 799; Thorndike v. Coombes, 63 A.D.2d 843, 845).