From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Omrami v. Socrates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 13, 1996
227 A.D.2d 459 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 13, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion by Andreas Socrates for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as it is asserted against him.

This litigation involves a three-car accident. A police officer who witnessed the accident testified at his deposition that the plaintiff's vehicle stopped and hit one of the cones used to close the traffic lane due to an icy condition ahead. A vehicle driven by the defendant Andreas Socrates came to a complete stop behind the plaintiff's vehicle. A few seconds later, a vehicle driven by the defendant C. Koliovoudras struck the rear end of Socrates' vehicle, which caused it to strike the plaintiff's vehicle. The officer, who gave essentially the same description of the accident in a police report, stated that he observed the accident clearly from a distance of about 30 feet. Socrates moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to him based on the officer's report, the officer's deposition testimony, and his own deposition testimony, in which he stated that his vehicle came to a complete stop a few feet behind the plaintiff's vehicle before being struck by the Koliovoudras vehicle. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted an excerpt from his deposition testimony in which he stated that his vehicle was struck twice from behind.

"The court may not weigh the credibility of the affiants on a motion for summary judgment unless it clearly appears that the issues are not genuine, but feigned" ( Glick Dolleck v. TriPac Export Corp., 22 N.Y.2d 439, 441). The conflicting statements in the record as to the happening of the accident create a triable issue of fact as to whether Socrates' conduct caused or contributed to the accident ( see, e.g., Cofrancesco v. Murino, 225 A.D.2d 648; Acampora v. Davis, 203 A.D.2d 399). Accordingly, the court erred in granting summary judgment to Socrates. Ritter, J.P., Copertino, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Omrami v. Socrates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 13, 1996
227 A.D.2d 459 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Omrami v. Socrates

Case Details

Full title:SHAHROKH OMRAMI, Appellant, v. ANDREAS SOCRATES, Respondent, et al.…

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

Date published: May 13, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 459 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 932

Citing Cases

Wysocka v. Neglia

Therefore, since Rosado presented evidence that suggests multiple impacts occurred, a triable question of…

Viggiano v. Camara

In contrast, the plaintiff's both testified at their depositions that, after the collision with Camara, they…