Noel v Ambassador Foods Corp.
Annotate this CaseDecided on April 12, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick, Richter, JJ.
4770 350064/09
[*1]Lakeysha L. Noel, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Phillip Garvin, etc., Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v
Ambassador Foods Corporation, et al., Defendants, Nyall Management, Ltd., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Marjorie E. Bornes, New York, for appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered August 12, 2010, which denied defendants Nyall Management, Ltd. and Henry Matos-Batista's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The record demonstrates that defendant Matos-Batista was driving his vehicle southbound with plaintiffs as his passengers when a vehicle owned by defendant Ambassador Foods Corporation, which was traveling northbound, made a sharp, sudden turn, and crashed into the driver's side of Matos-Batista's car, pushing it into a parked car; the Ambassador vehicle then fled the scene. Matos-Batista testified that he had only a second to react, and he, and plaintiff Noel, testified that he applied the brakes immediately before contact and unsuccessfully attempted to maneuver his vehicle away from the Ambassador vehicle. Under the circumstances presented, defendants demonstrated that Matos-Batista was confronted by an emergency situation and that he acted reasonably in the context thereof (see Ward v Cox, 38 AD3d 313, 314 [2007]; Bender v Gross, 33 AD3d 417 [2006]). [*2]
No triable issues of fact were raised to defeat the motion, as neither plaintiffs nor co-defendants responded to the motion, nor have they submitted a brief on appeal.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: APRIL 12, 2011
CLERK
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
