Opinion
2002-07252
Argued June 10, 2003.
June 30, 2003.
In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 28, 2002, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Premier Distribution Services, Inc., Clarence Williams, Penske Truck Leasing Corp., and Tree of Life Company which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the defendant Potamkin New York LP Mitsubishi Sterling separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the motion which was to dismiss its cross claims insofar as asserted against those defendants.
Barton, Barton Plotkin, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth Mark Meyerson of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Motola Klar Dinowitz Carfora, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Howard P. Klar and Kimberly A. Ricciardi of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Connors Connors, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (John P. Connors, Jr., Maria E. Cannon, and Susan E. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), for respondents.
Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The defendants Premier Distribution Services, Inc., Clarence Williams, Penske Truck Leasing Corp., and Tree of Life Company established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that their alleged negligence, if any, was not a proximate cause of the accident ( see Sheehan v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 496; Boland v. Pinks, 267 A.D.2d 342; Haylett v. New York City Tr. Auth., 251 A.D.2d 373) . It was therefore incumbent upon the plaintiff and the defendant Potamkin New York LP Mitsubishi Sterling (hereinafter Potamkin) to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). The plaintiff and Potamkin did not meet their burden because they relied upon completely speculative and insufficient evidence to oppose the motion ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Lawhorn v. Scott, 298 A.D.2d 503).
PRUDENTI, P.J., ALTMAN, SMITH and ADAMS, JJ., concur.