Majority
The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when the motor vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Miguel A. Jimenez, in which she was a passenger, was struck by a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Esteban Perez Roldan. Following joinder of issue and the completion of discovery, Jimenez moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.
Jimenez established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting admissible evidence demonstrating that his double-parked vehicle was not a proximate cause of the accident (see CPLR 3212; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 , 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 , 853 [1985]; Darmento v Pacific Molasses Co., 81 NY2d 985 , 988 [1993]; Gerrity v Muthana, 7 NY3d 834 [2006]; Dauber v Stone, 76 AD3d 699 [2010]; Williams v City of New York, 240 AD2d 734 [1997]).
In opposition, no triable issue of fact was raised. Even assum
Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying Jimenez’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 at 324 p. 640
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center 64 NY2d 851 at 853 p. 640
- Darmento v. Pacific Molasses Co. 81 NY2d 985 at 988 p. 640
- Gerrity v. Muthana 7 NY3d 834 p. 640
- Williams v. City of New York 240 AD2d 734 p. 640
- Sheehan v. City of New York 40 NY2d 496 at 503 p. 641
- Wechter v. Kelner 40 AD3d 747 p. 641
- Fermaglich v. Arnone 36 AD3d 584 p. 641
- Dormena v. Wallace 282 AD2d 425 p. 641