| Rodriguez v Ryder Truck, Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00769 [91 AD3d 935] |
| Jnury 31, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Juan Rodriguez et al., Appellants, v Ryder Truck, Inc., etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] O'Connor, O'Connor, Hintz & Deveney, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Eileen M. Baumgartner ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated December 15, 2010, which deniedtheir motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the unsigned but certified deposition of the plaintiffJuan Rodriguez, which was submitted in support of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment,was admissible under CPLR 3116 (a), since the transcript was submitted by the party deponenthimself and, therefore, was adopted as accurate by the deponent (see Ashif v Won Ok Lee, 57 AD3d700 [2008]). Additionally, although the plaintiffs initially failed to submit the certificationpage of the deposition of the defendant Derrick Thomas, they submitted it on reply in response tothe defendants' arguments in opposition. Under the circumstances of this case, the latesubmission did not prejudice the defendants, and the Supreme Court should have considered thecertification (see Mazzarelli v 54 PlusRealty Corp., 54 AD3d 1008 [2008]; cf. Navarrete v A & V Pasta Prods., Inc., 32 AD3d 1003, 1004[2006]). Furthermore, although unsigned, as noted above, the transcript of Thomas's depositionwas certified, and the defendants did not raise any challenges to its accuracy. Thus, it qualified asadmissible evidence for purposes of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (see Zalot v Zieba, 81 AD3d 935,936 [2011]; Bennett v Berger, 283 AD2d 374 [2001]; Zabari v City of New York,242 AD2d 15, 17 [1998]). However, the uncertified and unsworn police report submitted by theplaintiffs in support of their motion was inadmissible (see Toussaint v Ferrara Bros. Cement Mixer, 33 AD3d 991, 992[2006]; Bates v Yasin, 13 AD3d474 [2004]; Lacagnino v Gonzalez, 306 AD2d 250 [2003]).
The depositions submitted by the plaintiffs revealed that the vehicle driven by Thomas struckthe vehicle driven by Rodriguez from the rear while it was stopped at a traffic light. Thisevidence was sufficient to establish the plaintiffs' prima facie entitlement to summary judgmenton the issue of liability (see Giangrassov Callahan, 87 AD3d 521, 522 [2011]). In opposition, the [*2]defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether therewas a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Stief v URA, Inc., 89 AD3d 720 [2011]). Accordingly, theSupreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue ofliability. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.