From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Borges v. Zukowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 2005
22 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-09731.

October 3, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated September 27, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Litchfield Cavo, New York, N.Y. (Edward Fogarty, Jr., and Peter Cusick of counsel), for appellants.

The Cochran Firm, New York, N.Y. (Joseph S. Rosato and James M. Lane of counsel), for respondents.

Before: H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants presented a prima facie case that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the plaintiff Isaac Borges in proceeding through an intersection against a red traffic light without stopping ( see Iqbal v. Petrov, 9 AD3d 416; Lestingi v. Holland, 297 AD2d 627; see also Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 [d]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Iqbal v. Petrov, supra; Lestingi v. Holland, supra).


Summaries of

Borges v. Zukowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 2005
22 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Borges v. Zukowski

Case Details

Full title:ISAAC BORGES et al., Respondents, v. MARIYSZ ZUKOWSKI et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 3, 2005

Citations

22 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7332
801 N.Y.S.2d 544

Citing Cases

Pitt v. Alpert

The plaintiff established that the defendant's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the subject…

Yacoub v. Natt Leasing, Inc.

nt who establishes that he was not negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle is entitled to summary…