Opinion
2013-06-5
Michael VELTRI, plaintiff-respondent, v. Dwek SOLOMON, defendant, Honda Lease Trust, et al., defendants-respondents, Carlos Arango, appellant.
Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York, N.Y. (Anna J. Ervolina and Andrea M. Alonso of counsel), for appellant. Lazarowitz & Manganillo, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas J. Solomon of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, New York, N.Y. (Anna J. Ervolina and Andrea M. Alonso of counsel), for appellant. Lazarowitz & Manganillo, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas J. Solomon of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Brand, Glick & Brand, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Peter M. Khrinenko of counsel), for defendants-respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Carlos Arango appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated January 26, 2012, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. The conflicting depositiontestimony submitted in support of the motion revealed the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the collision of the appellant's vehicle with the rear of the vehicle operated by the defendant Arthur Adimolfi caused or contributed to the alleged injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the subject multi-vehicle, chain-reaction accident ( see Leung v. Bolton, 95 A.D.3d 836, 837, 942 N.Y.S.2d 905;Polanco–Espinal v. City of New York, 84 A.D.3d 914, 921 N.Y.S.2d 862;Omrami v. Socrates, 227 A.D.2d 459, 642 N.Y.S.2d 932). Since the appellant failed to meet his prima facie burden, his motion for summary judgment was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642;Brown v. Demon Trucking, Inc., 104 A.D.3d 634, 960 N.Y.S.2d 220).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.