From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franco v. Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, Ltd.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 21, 2013
103 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-02-21

Mario FRANCO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ROLLING FRITO–LAY SALES, LTD., et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Scott Baron & Associates, P.C., Howard Beach (John Burnett of counsel), for appellant. Richard J. Davolio, Sayville, for respondents.



Scott Baron & Associates, P.C., Howard Beach (John Burnett of counsel), for appellant. Richard J. Davolio, Sayville, for respondents.
ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, DeGRASSE, ABDUS–SALAAM, FEINMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia Rodriguez, J.), entered January 9, 2012, which, in this personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The unsigned deposition transcripts submitted by defendants in support of their motion were admissible ( seeCPLR 3116[a] ). Plaintiff's transcript was certified by the reporter and plaintiff does not challenge its accuracy ( Sass v. TMT Restoration Consultants Ltd., 100 A.D.3d 443, 443, 953 N.Y.S.2d 574 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Although the unsigned deposition transcript of defendant Jordain was not certified by a reporter, it “was submitted by the party deponent himself, and therefore, was adopted as accurate by the deponent” ( Rodriguez v. Ryder Truck, Inc., 91 A.D.3d 935, 936, 937 N.Y.S.2d 602 [2d Dept. 2012] ).

Defendants, as the owner and operator of the stopped vehicle that was rear-ended by plaintiff, were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision ( see Francisco v. Schoepfer, 30 A.D.3d 275, 275–276, 817 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept. 2006] ). Plaintiff's assertion that defendants' vehicle had “stopped suddenly” is insufficient to rebut the presumption of his negligence ( id. at 276, 817 N.Y.S.2d 52).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Franco v. Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, Ltd.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 21, 2013
103 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Franco v. Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:Mario FRANCO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ROLLING FRITO–LAY SALES, LTD., et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 21, 2013

Citations

103 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
962 N.Y.S.2d 54
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 1176

Citing Cases

Wright v. Royal Waste Servs., Inc.

Vehicle and Traffic Law §1129(a). If defendant Schon was suddenly faced with an emergency situation, it was…

Singh v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

Defendant's argument that the deposition testimony and photographic evidence were inadmissible is…