Polanco-Espinal v City of New York
2011 NY Slip Op 04026 [84 AD3d 914]
May 10, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 6, 2011


Lorenzo Polanco-Espinal, Appellant,
v
City of New Yorket al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[*1]Elliot Ifraimoff & Associates, P.C. (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y., ofcounsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo andElizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Miller, J.), datedNovember 4, 2009, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to so much of a priordetermination made in an order of the same court dated June 1, 2009, as, upon granting themotion of the defendants Royal Electric & Wiring Corp. and Michail Kaffetzakis for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, searched the record andawarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendantsCity of New York and Vladimir Radionov.

Ordered that the order dated November 4, 2009, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on thelaw, with costs, and, upon renewal and reargument, so much of the order dated June 1, 2009, as,upon granting the motion of the defendants Royal Electric & Wiring Corp. and MichailKaffetzakis for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them,searched the record and awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst the defendants City of New York and Vladimir Radionov is vacated.

The Supreme Court erred in searching the record and awarding summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants City of New York andVladimir Radionov. There was conflicting evidence as to how the subject three-vehicle, rear-end,chain-reaction collision occurred, including evidence suggesting that there were multiple impacts(see Vavoulis v Adler, 43 AD3d1154, 1155 [2007]; Thoman vRivera, 16 AD3d 667, 668 [2005]; Hudson v Cole, 264 AD2d 439 [1999]).Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.