| Gonzalez v Ceesay |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06279 [98 AD3d 1078] |
| September 26, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Marta Gonzalez, Respondent, v Amie Ceesay,Appellant. |
—[*1] Gassler & O'Rourke, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y. (Charles P. Gassler of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), entered September 1, 2011, which granted theplaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when the defendant's vehicle struck theplaintiff's vehicle in the rear while the plaintiff was seated in the driver's seat. The plaintiff'svehicle was fully stopped and double-parked outside an apartment building in Queens. Theplaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court granted themotion, and the defendant appeals.
In support of her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff failed toestablish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v NewYork Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Under the circumstances presented here, theplaintiff failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether, inter alia, her own negligence indouble-parking her vehicle in violation of 34 RCNY 4-08 (f) (1) was a proximate cause of theaccident (see Ferrer v Harris, 55 NY2d 285 [1982]; Roman v A1 Limousine, Inc., 76 AD3d 552, 553 [2010]; Adams v Lemberg Enters., Inc., 44AD3d 694, 695 [2007]; Ferguson v Gassman, 229 AD2d 464 [1996]). Accordingly,the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motion. Florio, J.P., Balkin, Lott and Miller,JJ., concur.