From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maynard v. Vandyke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 26, 2010
69 A.D.3d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2035 304120/09.

January 26, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered September 1, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, with leave to renew upon completion of depositions, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

The Sullivan Law Firm, New York (Timothy M. Sullivan of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Thomas K. Moore, White Plains (Howard T. Code of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.


Plaintiffs vehicle, while stopped at a traffic light, was struck in the rear by defendant's vehicle. In opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, defendant failed to raise a question of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent reason for the collision ( see Mullen v Rigor, 8 AD3d 104). Since defendant herself would be the party with knowledge of any such nonnegligent reasons, it does not avail her that her counsel had not yet received plaintiffs bill of particulars setting forth his claims in detail ( Soto-Maroquin v Mellet, 63 AD3d 449).


Summaries of

Maynard v. Vandyke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 26, 2010
69 A.D.3d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Maynard v. Vandyke

Case Details

Full title:CHONDA MAYNARD, Appellant, v. PATTI VANDYKE, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 26, 2010

Citations

69 A.D.3d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 556
893 N.Y.S.2d 53

Citing Cases

Succart v. Nwosu

Given defendants' failure to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision and the failure to…

Sosa v. Romano

Given defendant's failure to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision and the failure to…