From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lastuvka v. Pearson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 22, 2006
32 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-05332.

August 22, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants P.C. Richard Son Long Island Corporation, P.C. Richard Son, LLC, P.C. Richard Son Service Company, Inc., and A. J. Richard Sons, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated May 3, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Parisi Smitelli, Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney and Janet L.H. Smitelli of counsel), for appellants.

O'Brien O'Brien, LLP, Nesconset, N.Y. (John M. Denby and Stephen L. O'Brien of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Before: Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Lunn, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff was riding on a motorcycle when it allegedly was "clipped" by a jeep operated by the defendant Kim E. Pearson, which allegedly forced the plaintiff to leave the roadway and slide onto a grassy area beyond a curb and strike a wooden post of a sign erected by the appellants.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the appellants, alleging that his injuries were caused by the placement of the sign, which had been negligently erected without municipal approval. The appellants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

The appellants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the proximate cause of the accident was the manner in which the subject vehicles were operated. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the placement of the sign was a proximate cause of the accident ( see Tomassi v Town of Union, 46 NY2d 91; Ficarra v Parker, 8 AD3d 333; Thomas v Halmar Bldrs. of N.Y., 290 AD2d 502).


Summaries of

Lastuvka v. Pearson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 22, 2006
32 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Lastuvka v. Pearson

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW LASTUVKA, Respondent, v. KIM E. PEARSON et al., Respondents, and…

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

Date published: Aug 22, 2006

Citations

32 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6273
820 N.Y.S.2d 630

Citing Cases

Schmidt v. Policella

The plaintiffs, inter alia, allege that the Town of New Windsor was negligent in its design and maintenance…

Cesak v. Juan

We reverse. Even if the City and the SCA improperly erected a sidewalk shed and permitted it to be used for…