| Grossi v Sylak |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03279 [72 AD3d 895] |
| April 20, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jamie Grossi, Appellant, v Constance M. Sylak,Respondent. |
—[*1] Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Robert I. Meyers ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated May 19, 2009, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
Approximately five minutes after the defendant's vehicle slid on a snow-covered road intothe rear of the plaintiff's vehicle while the plaintiff's vehicle was stopped at a red light, theplaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell while returning to his automobile after exchanginginsurance information with the defendant. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.
The defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether theplaintiff's fall was a foreseeable consequence of her original negligence (see Derdiarian vFelix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]; see generally Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). On this record, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, thatthe plaintiff's actions were of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated the defendant'snegligence from the ultimate injury that the plaintiff's conduct constituted a superseding causeabsolving the defendant from liability (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d at315-316; Carson v Dudley, 25AD3d 983 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Sgroi,JJ., concur.