Opinion
2021–03871 Index No. 718343/19
08-30-2023
Jose RODRIGUEZ, respondent, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., appellants.
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney P.C., New York, NY (Daniel Z. Rivlin of counsel), for appellants. Levine and Wiss, PLLC (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, NY, of counsel), for respondent.
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney P.C., New York, NY (Daniel Z. Rivlin of counsel), for appellants.
Levine and Wiss, PLLC (Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, NY, of counsel), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., LARA J. GENOVESI, BARRY E. WARHIT, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered March 29, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In April 2019, the plaintiff was in a vehicle parked in a restricted area near a terminal within LaGuardia Airport when the vehicle was struck in the rear by a belt loader owned by the defendant American Airlines, Inc., and operated by the defendant Robert Dennis Politi. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained in the accident and subsequently moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In an order entered March 29, 2021, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the motion, and the defendants appeal.
"A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries" ( Tsyganash v. Auto Mall Fleet Mgt., Inc., 163 A.D.3d 1033 –1034, 83 N.Y.S.3d 74 ; see Festagallo v. Mandelbaum, 213 A.D.3d 741, 742, 184 N.Y.S.3d 81 ; Wray v. Galella, 172 A.D.3d 1446, 1447, 101 N.Y.S.3d 401 ). "To be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of a defendant's liability, a plaintiff does not bear the burden of establishing the absence of his or her own comparative negligence" ( Maliakel v. Morio, 185 A.D.3d 1018, 1019, 129 N.Y.S.3d 99 ; see Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312, 324–325, 76 N.Y.S.3d 898, 101 N.E.3d 366 ; Jackson v. Klein, 203 A.D.3d 1147, 1148, 163 N.Y.S.3d 438 ). A court deciding a motion for summary judgment must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (see Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 824, 833, 988 N.Y.S.2d 86, 11 N.E.3d 159 ; Tucubal v. National Express Tr. Corp., 209 A.D.3d 788, 789, 176 N.Y.S.3d 675 ).
Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that Politi's failure to see that which he should have seen through the proper use of his senses as he was backing up the belt loader was a proximate cause of the accident (see Francois v. Tang, 171 A.D.3d 1139, 1139–1140, 96 N.Y.S.3d 900 ; Rodriguez v. City of New York, 161 A.D.3d 575, 576–577, 77 N.Y.S.3d 46 ; Francis v. J.R. Bros. Corp., 98 A.D.3d 940, 941, 950 N.Y.S.2d 584 ; Guzman v. Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 A.D.3d 150, 150–151, 772 N.Y.S.2d 25 ). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
In light of our determination, we need not address the defendants’ remaining contention.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., GENOVESI, WARHIT and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.