| Agurto v Dela |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07379 [44 AD3d 362] |
| October 4, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Alejandro Agurto, Sr., et al., Respondents, v Nestor S. Delaet al., Appellants, and Santos Lopez et al., Respondents, et al.,Defendant. |
—[*1] Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (David B. Owens of counsel), for Agurtorespondents. Finder and Cuomo, LLP, New York (Sara R. David of counsel), for Lopezrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered September 21, 2006,which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion bydefendants-appellants Dela and Quiroa for summary judgment dismissing the complaint,unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissedas against these defendants. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Under the circumstances of this case, including the lapse of time, we find, as a matter of law,that, even assuming without deciding that Dela was negligent in the operation of the vehicleowned by Quiroa and that Dela's negligence was a proximate cause of the first accident, it cannotreasonably be inferred that such negligence was a proximate cause of the second accident (seeVentricelli v Kinney Sys. Rent A Car, 45 NY2d 950 [1978]). At most, that negligencemerely furnished a condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident (see Sheehan vCity of New York, 40 NY2d 496, 503 [1976]). The second accident occurred approximately10 minutes later when defendant Lopez, the operator of a fourth vehicle, entered the expressway'sright shoulder to avoid a slowing 18-wheel tractor-trailer, striking and killing one of the plaintiffsand injuring another, both of whom were standing on the shoulder. This second accident was asuperseding or intervening event severing whatever causal connection there might have beenbetween any negligence of Dela and plaintiffs' injuries (see Mahmood v Pinto, 17 AD3d 641 [2005]; Jackson vNoel, 299 AD2d 456 [2002]). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint against Dela and Quiroa should have been granted.[*2]
In light of this determination, we do not reach theremaining arguments on appeal. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire andMalone, JJ.