Prine v Santee

Prine v Santee 2013 NY Slip Op 03267 Decided on May 7, 2013 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 7, 2013
No. 140 SSM 9

[*1]Mark A. Prine, Appellant,

v

Adam M. Santee, Appellant, Simon M. Coal-Aloor, Defendant, Anna Torres, Respondent.




Submitted by Edward J. Markarian, for appellant Prine.
Submitted by Katelyn E. Dieffenderfer, for appellant
Santee.
Submitted by Jill Z. Florkowski, for respondent.


MEMORANDUM:

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, [*2]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]).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur.
Decided May 7, 2013