| Cuccio v Ciotkosz |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06620 [43 AD3d 850] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Robert F. Cuccio, Respondent, v Deborah A. Ciotkosz etal., Appellants. |
—[*1] Cruser & Mitchell, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Rondiene E. Novitz and Beth S. Gereg of counsel),for appellants Kin Leasing Corp., Medical Express Ambulance Corp., and Joseph Waunsch. Rappaport, Glass, Greene & Levine, LLP (Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, N.Y., ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Kin Leasing Corp.,Medical Express Ambulance Corp., and Joseph Waunsch appeal, as limited by their brief, fromso much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), entered July 3, 2006,as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claimsinsofar as asserted against them, and the defendants Deborah A. Ciotkosz and Stephanie M.Vasquez separately appeal from so much of the same order as denied their separate motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs,and the motions for summary judgment are granted.
At approximately 4:00 a.m. on November 20, 2002 the defendant Joseph Waunsch wasdriving an ambulance eastbound on the south service road of Sunrise Highway in Oakdale. Asthe ambulance entered the signal-controlled intersection of the service road and Locust Avenue(hereinafter the intersection), it collided with a Ford Bronco operated by the defendant StephanieVasquez, which was traveling northbound on Locust Avenue. The Bronco came to restobstructing the left northbound travel lane of Locust Avenue. At least one lane remained openand unobstructed, and a passerby who stopped to check on the occupants of the ambulance andthe Bronco observed vehicles proceeding northbound through the unoccupied lane.
Approximately five minutes later, the plaintiff was driving northbound on Locust Avenuetoward the intersection. The passerby first observed the plaintiff's vehicle from four or five carlengths away. She surmised that the plaintiff's vehicle was not going to stop and told Vasquez,who was standing in the street, to get out of the way.
The plaintiff testified at his deposition that as he approached the intersection, he noticed thatthe traffic light was green, and there was nothing that obstructed his view of the intersection. Heacknowledged that he saw the Bronco in the intersection under the traffic light and saw twopeople standing between him and the Bronco run in opposite directions. The plaintiff did notrecall whether he applied his brakes. The front of his vehicle hit the side of the Bronco.
The defendants established as a matter of law that the collision between the Bronco and theambulance merely furnished the occasion for the occurrence of the plaintiff's accident (see Peters v City of New York, 33AD3d 779 [2006]), and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The sole proximatecause of the plaintiff's accident was his failure to see what was there to be seen (see Gregson v Terry, 35 AD3d358, 361 [2006]; Mankiewicz vExcellent, 25 AD3d 591, 592 [2006]). Accordingly, the defendants' motions forsummary judgment should have been granted. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Covello, JJ.,concur.