From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Siewsankar v. Chattoo

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 2008
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 52177 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)

Opinion

2007-1703 Q C.

Decided October 31, 2008.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Denis Butler, J.), entered August 17, 2007. The order denied a motion by defendants Davanand Chattoo and Lawrence Chattoo for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.

Order affirmed without costs.

PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ.


In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover for serious injuries allegedly sustained while he was a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by defendant Davanand Chattoo and owned by defendant Lawrence Chattoo, which was involved in an accident on April 8, 2003. The accident occurred when Davanand Chattoo was driving on 115th Street in Richmond Hill and defendant Ganess Persuad was pulling out of a parking space. Defendants Davanand Chattoo and Lawrence Chattoo moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them on the ground that they were not liable for the accident. Plaintiff and defendant Persuad opposed the motion, arguing that issues of fact exist as to Davanand Chattoo's negligence. The court below denied the motion for summary judgment. This appeal by Davanand Chattoo and Lawrence Chattoo ensued.

The Chattoo defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as against them ( see Feldmus v Ryan Food Corp., 29 AD3d 940; Glenn v Couvopoulo, 21 AD3d 526). Although Davanand Chattoo had the right-of-way, the moving defendants failed to demonstrate that no issue of fact exists as to whether Davanand Chattoo contributed to the accident by failing to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances ( see Rotondi v Rao, 49 AD3d 520; Cox v Nunez, 23 AD3d 427). As a result, the Chattoo defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants for summary judgment, and we need not review the sufficiency of the opposition papers ( see Whack v Williams, 53 AD3d 481; Parnes v Mitzy Transp., 44 AD3d 918). Consequently, the order is affirmed.

Golia, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Siewsankar v. Chattoo

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 31, 2008
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 52177 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)
Case details for

Siewsankar v. Chattoo

Case Details

Full title:RITCHIE SIEWSANKAR, Respondent, v. DAVANAND CHATTOO and LAWRENCE CHATTOO…

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

Date published: Oct 31, 2008

Citations

2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 52177 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)