arrow left
arrow right
  • Luis Alvarez Martinez v. Sterling Rodriguez Brito, Darlene Acosta, Alexander Ceballos Montas, American United Transportation Inc.Torts - Motor Vehicle document preview
  • Luis Alvarez Martinez v. Sterling Rodriguez Brito, Darlene Acosta, Alexander Ceballos Montas, American United Transportation Inc.Torts - Motor Vehicle document preview
  • Luis Alvarez Martinez v. Sterling Rodriguez Brito, Darlene Acosta, Alexander Ceballos Montas, American United Transportation Inc.Torts - Motor Vehicle document preview
  • Luis Alvarez Martinez v. Sterling Rodriguez Brito, Darlene Acosta, Alexander Ceballos Montas, American United Transportation Inc.Torts - Motor Vehicle document preview
						
                                

Preview

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 01:05 PM INDEX NO. 35565/2020E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 01:05 PM INDEX NO. 35565/2020E 2/17/23, 10:39 AM Maynard v Vandyke (2010 NY Slip Op 00556) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023 Maynard v Vandyke 2010 NY Slip Op 00556 [69 AD3d 515] January 26, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting.Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010 Chonda Maynard, Appellant, v Patti Vandyke, Respondent. -[*1] 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. 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. Plaintiffs vehicle, while stopped at a traffic light, was struck in the rear by defendants 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 B_igor, 8 AD3d 104 [2004]). 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 [2009]). Concur-Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_00556.htm 1/1