Court Opinion

ID: 9916560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:10:15.179544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:34.536808
License: Public Domain

Plasencia v Collado
               2020 NY Slip Op 35560(U)
                   September 24, 2020
             Supreme Court, Bronx County
        Docket Number: Index No. 28341/2019E
                  Judge: Ben R. Barbato
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2020 03:42 PM                                                            INDEX NO. 28341/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66                                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2020

                                                                                                           C
        ' .

              Motion is Respectfu ll y Referred to Justice: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
              Dated : - -- - - -- -

              SUPREME CO URT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
              COUNTY OF BRONX, PART 11/
              ----------------------------------------------------------------- --X
               JENNY M. PLASE CIA,                                                Index N~.2834 1/2019E

               Plaintiff,
                                          -agai nst-                              Hon.     BEN R. BARBATO

               JESU A. CRUZ COLLADO. FIRST CLASS CAR                                            Justice Supreme Court
               AND LIMOUSINE SERV ICE CORP., MARLE E
               PEREZ and QLR FOUR INC..

               Defendants.
              ----------------------------------------------------------------- --X
              The followi ng      YSCEF papers numbe red 26-65 were read on this motion (Seq. No. 1) for

               SUMMARY JUDGMENT LIABILITY _ _ noticed on _                               August 10, 2020_ _ _

               otice of Motion - O rder to Show Cause - Exhi bits and Affidavits                   o(s).        26-65
              Annexed
              Answering Affidavit and Exhi bi ts                                                   o(s).
              Re 1 in ° Affidavit and Exhibits                                                     o(s

                       This is an action for personal injuries sustained in an accident that occurred at
              2701 Kingsbridge Terrace , Bronx, NY on January 1, 20 19.
                        Defendant Marlene Perez (hereinafter "Defendant Perez") moves for an order
              pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of liability and
              dism issing Plaintiff's complaint and any cross cla ims as against her. Plaintiff cross
              moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment on the issue of
              liability as against the Defendant Jesus A. Cruz Collado (hereinafter "Defendant "Cruz
              Collado").
                       Defendant Cruz Collado , Defendant First Class Ca r and Limousine Service Corp .
              (hereinafter "Defendant First Class") and Plaintiff each su bmitted an Affirmation in

                                                                    1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2020 03:42 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 28341/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2020

        '   '

                Opposition to Defendant Perez's motion.      Defendant Perez submitted a Reply to the
                Affirmations in Opposition .

                       Defendant Perez, Defendant First Class , and Defendant Cruz Collado each
                subm itted an Affirmation in Opposition ro Plaintiff's cross motion . Plaintiff submitted a
                Reply to the Affirmations in Opposition .

                       DEFENDANT PEREZ'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
                       Defendant Perez contends that liability cannot be imposed on her since the
                accident occurred wh ile her vehicle was lawfully pa rked and unoccupied in front of 2701
                Kingsbridge Terrace, and was struck by an unknown vehicle.
                       In support of her motion for summary judgment, Defendant Perez subm itted her
                sworn Affidavit wherein she stated that on January 1, 2019 , in the late morning , she
                went outside to her car wh ich was parked in front of 2701 Kingsbridge Terrace, where
                she had parked in the night before . She noticed that it now had sign ificant damage to
                its rear passenger's side , the rear tire was torn an d defl ated, and there was damage to
                the entire front bumper of her car. She claimed that this damage did not exist when
                she parked her ca r in that same location on the even ing of December 31 , 2018.
                Defendant Perez stated that upon a rev iew of the pol ice report, she learned another
                vehicle involved in the accident had been parked in fro nt of her vehicle . That vehicle
                belonged to Defendant QLR Fou r Inc. (hereinafter "Defe ndant QLR"), and had been
                towed from the location before she went to her ca r and saw that an accident had
                occurred .
                       Defendant Perez also submitted the Police Accident Report (hereinafter "the
                Repo rt") in further support of her motion . Accord ing to the Report, "Unknown veh icle
                hit parked vehicles. Vehicle 2 [the Perez vehicle] was hit and pushed into Vehicle 1
                [the QLR vehicle].   Owner of Veh icle 1 [the QLR Vehicle] states he parked veh icle on
                12/31 /1 8 at 6PM and saw damage on 01 /01/19 at 7AM. Veh icle 2 [the Perez ve hicle]
                was parked and was hit and pushed into parked Veh;cle 1 [the QLR vehicle]. Both
                vehicles were unattended ."
                       Defendant Cruz Collado argues in opposition th at the facts proffered by

                                                            2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2020 03:42 PM                                             INDEX NO. 28341/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2020

          •

              Defendant Perez create issues of fact, but he fails to state what those issues of fact
              might be. Plaintiff argues in opposition that an issue of fact exists as to whether
              Defendant Perez's vehicle was properly or safely parked.     However, no affidavit was
              submitted by either Defendant Cruz Collado or Plaintiff in support of their opposition to
              Defendant Perez's motion. Defendant QLR argues in opposition that it does not have
              first hand knowledge of the facts relating to the happening of the occurrence , and claims
              that summary judgment is an attempt to deprive them of the opportunity to seek
              adequate discovery.    Defendant QLR also did not submit an affidavit in support of its
              opposition to the motion.

                        To establish a prima facie case of neg ligence, it must be shown that the
              negligent actor's actions were a substantial cause of the events which produced the
              injury; liability for negligence may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes
              the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes.
              See Roman v. Cabrera , 113 A.D .3d 541 (1st Dept. 2014) ; see also Gregware v. City of
              New York, 94 A.D.3d 470 (1st Dept. 2012) ; see also Iqba l v. Thai , 83 A.D.3d 897 (2d
              Dept. 2011 ); see also Quinones v. Nugent, 59 A.D.3d 693 (2d Dept. 2009); see also
              Pironti v. Leary, 42 A.D .3d 487 (2d Dept. 2007) .

              1      Summary judgment is a drastic remedy. The proponent for a summary judgment
              motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law,
              tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact.
              See Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 N.Y.2d 85 1,853 (1985) . A party
              moving for summary judgment is obliged to prove th rough adm issible evidence that the
              movant is entitle to judgment as a matter of law . See Zuckerman v City of New York , 49
              N.Y.2d 557 (1980) . Anything less requires a denial of the motion for summary
              judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers. See Yates v Dow
              Chemical Co ., 68 A.D.2d 907 (2d Dept 1979). The cou rt' s functi on on a motion for
              summary judgment is issue finding rather that issue determination (Sillman v. Twentieth
              Century Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395 [1957]). Since summary judgment is a drastic
              remedy, it should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a
              triable issue (Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223 [1 978] .) The burden on the
              movant is a heavy one, and the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the

                                                        3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2020 03:42 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 28341/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2020

            non-moving party (Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hasps. Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 824
            (2014] .) .

                    Once a showing of prima facie entitlement to summary judgment has been made ,
            the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce
            "evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material
            issues of fact which require a trial of the action " (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d
            320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923 (1986]) .

                           Upon a review of Defendant Perez's affidavit and the Certified Police
            Report, the Court finds that Defendant Perez met her burden of establishing a prima
            facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability.(See Williams
            v Hamilton, 116 A.D.3d 421 , 422 , [P1 Dept 2014]) . There was no negligence on the
            part of Defendant Perez as evidenced by her Affidavit and the Certified Police Report ..
            The evidence establishes that the Accident occurred when Defendant Perez's vehicle,
            which had been legally parked and unoccupied in front of 2701 Kingsbrige Terrace
            since the evening of December 31 , 2018, was struck by an unknown vehicle causing
            significant damage. Defendant Perez did not become aware of the Accident until the
            late morning of January 1, 2019 . Defendant Perez's veh icle merely furnished the
            condition for this accident since it was lawfully parked and unoccupied in front of 2701
            Kingsbridge Terrace and was stuck by an unknown vehicle.

            In light of this prima facie showing , the burden shifted to Plaintiff, Defendants Cruz
            Collado, First Class and QLR who failed to produce evidence of a non-negligent
            explanation or reason for the accident. See Mullen v. Rigor, 8 A.O. 3d. 104 (1.st Dept.
            2004) citing   Jean v Xu , 288 A.D .2d 62, (1st Dept. 2001) , and failed to produce
            '"evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material
            issues of fact which r&quire a trial of the action ."' Stoneh ill Capital Mgmt. , LLC , 28
            N.Y.3d 439 , 448 (2016) (quoting Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y. 3d 320, 324 (1986).
            There are only attorney affirmations and no affidavits of the parties submitted in support
            of the parties' opposition to this motion. A bare affirmation of an attorney with no
            personal knowledge of the matter, is unavailing and witho ut evidentiary value

                                                        4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/08/2020 03:42 PM                                                INDEX NO. 28341/2019E
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/08/2020

          •

              (Zuckerman v. City of New York , 49 N.Y.2d 557[1980]) . An attorney's conclusory and
              speculative affirmation lacking any evidentiary value is insufficient to warrant a denial of
              the motion (GTF Marketing, Inc. v. Colonial Aluminum Sales, Inc., 66 N.Y.2d 965[19851)

                      PLAINTIFF'S CROSS MOTION

                      According to the Affirmation submitted by Plaintiffs attorney in support of
              Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle
              operated by Defendant Cruz Collado on January 1, 2019, when it collided into two
              parked vehicles owned by Defendant Perez and Defendant QLR. Although it is
              claimed in the Attorney Affirmation that the collision occurred as a resu lt of an abrupt
              and sudden left turn made by Defendant Cruz Collado. Plaintiff did not submit her own
              Affidavit or any other evidence in support of her motion fo r summary judgment.

                      The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of establishing a prima
              facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the issue of
              liability since she relied only on her attorney's Affirmation, she did not subm it any further
              evidence nor did she submit her own affidavit rega rd ing the accident in support of her
              motion .

                      According ly, it is hereby

                      ORDERED , that the motion for summary judgment by Defendant Perez is
              granted on the issue of liability, and all claims and cross claims against her are
              dismissed.      It is further

                      ORDERED , that the cross motion for summa ry judgment by Plaintiff is denied in
              its entirety.
                     Th is constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

                     Dated:                                          4µ« ~
                                                                       HON~-~        R. BARBATI>

                                                         5 of 5
[* 5]