Lee v Hossain

Annotate this Case
Lee v Hossain 2013 NY Slip Op 07712 Decided on November 20, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department 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 November 20, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
SHERI S. ROMAN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2012-02963
(Index No. 26014/09)

[*1]Sonya Lee, plaintiff-respondent,

v

Mohammad Z. Hossain, et al., appellants, Alvin C. Licona, et al., defendants-respondents.




Skenderis & Cornacchia P.C. (Brand, Glick & Brand, P.C.,
Garden City, N.Y. [Andrew B. Federman], of counsel), for appellants.
Gersowitz Libo & Korek P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael
Zisser and Brian Isaac of counsel), for
plaintiff-respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Mohammad Z. Hossain and Mohammad H. Rahman appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated February 3, 2012, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the plaintiff-respondent.

In support of that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them on the ground that they were not liable in the happening of the accident, the appellants submitted, inter alia, various deposition transcripts of the parties. These transcripts contained conflicting testimony as to the facts surrounding the accident, including, but not limited to, the issue concerning which vehicle lawfully entered the intersection first—the plaintiff's vehicle, owned and operated by the appellants Mohammad Z. Hossain and Mohammad H. Rahman, respectively, or the vehicle owned and operated by the defendants Alvin C. Licona and Jorge A. Flores, respectively. Thus, the evidence did not establish, prima facie, that the vehicle operated by the defendant Jorge A. Flores violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, or that, if it did, such violation was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Gause v Martinez, 91 AD3d 595, 597; Todd v Godek, 71 AD3d 872, 873; Lopez v Reyes-Flores, 52 AD3d 785, 786). Since the appellants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted in opposition to that branch of the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted [*2]against them.
RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

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.