Abatzidis v Fenton

Abatzidis v Fenton 2014 NY Slip Op 02552 Decided on April 16, 2014 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 April 16, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
PLUMMER E. LOTT
SHERI S. ROMAN
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2012-03282
(Index No. 15238/09)

[*1]Ilyse Abatzidis, et al., appellants,

v

Maxwell Fenton, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.




Charles Bonfante III (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New
York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Michael H. Zhu], of counsel), for
appellants.
Cruser, Mitchell & Novitz, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Beth S.
Gereg of counsel), for respondents.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated February 1, 2012, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Maxwell Fenton and Paradigm Transportation Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants Maxwell Fenton and Paradigm Transportation Corp. established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that the defendant Reyes Cristobal's violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143, by failing to yield the right-of-way, was the sole proximate cause of the subject collision (see Recinos v Priamo, 94 AD3d 848; Strocchia v City of New York, 70 AD3d 926, 927; Ferrara v Castro, 283 AD2d 392). In opposition thereto, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324).

The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Maxwell Fenton and Paradigm Transportation Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
RIVERA, J.P., LOTT, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court