From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKeaveney v. Reiffert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 27, 2000
268 A.D.2d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued October 28, 1999

January 27, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, and the defendant Paul Pesca separately appeals, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated September 18, 1998, as granted the respective motions of the defendants Frederick Hill and Jennifer Reiffert for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Tinari, Paar, O'Connell, Osborn Sliney, LLP, Commack, N Y (James S. Paar of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Lawrence N. Rogak, Oceanside, N.Y. (Carolyn S. Rankin and Tamara Post of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Epstein, Hill, Grammatico Gann (Diane K. Farrell, East Setauket, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent Jennifer Reiffert.

Frank V. Merlino, Hauppauge, N.Y., for respondent Frederick Hill.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal of the defendant Paul Pesca is dismissed as he is not aggrieved by the order appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiffs, with one bill of costs payable by the plaintiffs.

The infant plaintiff was injured when, without stopping or looking for traffic, he rode his bicycle out of a driveway onto a street and collided with a vehicle owned by the defendant Frederick Hill and operated by the defendant Jennifer Reiffert. The Supreme Court properly granted Hill and Reiffert's separate motions for summary judgment.

Hill and Reiffert established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting deposition testimony which demonstrated that the infant plaintiff came into Reiffert's view when he was no more than 20 feet from the vehicle. Reiffert immediately applied her brakes, but could not avoid the collision, which occurred within a matter of seconds. Contrary to the appellants' contention, no issue of fact as to whether Reiffert was negligent was raised by either the police accident report, a nonparty eyewitness's statement, or the affidavit of the appellant Pesca ( see, Schneider v. American Diabetes Assn., 253 A.D.2d 807; Miesing v. Whinnery, 233 A.D.2d 551; Wilke v. Price, 221 A.D.2d 846).

O'BRIEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, FRIEDMANN, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McKeaveney v. Reiffert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 27, 2000
268 A.D.2d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

McKeaveney v. Reiffert

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN McKEAVENEY, etc., et al., plaintiffs-appellants, v. JENNIFER…

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

Date published: Jan 27, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 318

Citing Cases

Deluca v. Onolfi

Onolfi testified at his deposition that he noticed the tow truck while it was in the parking lot and next saw…

Ramirez v. Romualdo

Since service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) could have been made with due diligence, the process server's resort…