Guerra v. Cantos, 38 A.D.3d 714

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). The parties gave conflicting deposition testimony as to how the accident occurred. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must (see Makaj v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 18 AD3d 625, 626 [2005]), we find that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant driver cut in front of the plaintiff without signaling and contributed to this rear-end collision (see Briceno v Milbry, 16 AD3d 448, 448-449 [2005]; Mohan v Puthumana, 302 AD2d 437 [2003]; Rozengauz v Lok Wing Ha, 280 AD2d 534, 535 [2001]; Green v Hong Lee Trading, 263 AD2d 445 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Crane, J.P., Florio, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Guerra v. Cantos

Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date Published: Mar 20, 2007

Citations: 38 A.D.3d 714; 830 N.Y.S.2d 917

Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.