Hyperlawhypertext legal database Prine v. Santee 21 N.Y.3d 923

← Cases

Prine v. Santee

21 N.Y.3d 923 Court N.Y. Decision date 2013-05-07 English

Contents

Majority

p. 923
[989 NE2d 966, 967 NYS2d 684]
Mark A. Prine, Appellant, v Adam M. Santee, Appellant, and Anna Torres, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Decided May 7, 2013
p. 924
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Magavern Magavern Grimm LLP, Buffalo (Edward J. Markarian of counsel), for Mark A. Prine, appellant.
Chelus, Herdzik, Speyer & Monte, P.C., Buffalo (Katelyn E. Dieffenderfer and Scott R. Orndoff of counsel), for Adam M. Santee, appellant.
Law Office of Daniel R. Archilla, Buffalo (Jill Z. Florkowski of counsel), for respondent.
p. 925
OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff Mark A. Prine and defendant Adam M. Santee (see e.g. Branham v Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 8 NY3d 931 , 932 [2007]), defendant Anna Torres demonstrated her entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against her. The nonmoving parties failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Torres’s actions as the lead driver in this four-vehicle-chain-reaction accident constituted a contributing cause of the collision (cf. Tutrani v County of Suffolk, 10 NY3d 906 , 907-908 [2008]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited