| Veltri v Solomon |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03992 [107 AD3d 699] |
| June 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael Veltri, Respondent, v Dwek Solomon,Defendant, Honda Lease Trust et al., Respondents, and Carlos Arango,Appellant. |
—[*1] Lazarowitz & Manganillo, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas J. Solomon of counsel),for plaintiff-respondent. Brand, Glick & Brand, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Peter M. Khrinenko of counsel), fordefendants-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Carlos Arangoappeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty (Rothenberg, J.), dated January 26, 2012, as denied his motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costspayable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. Theconflicting deposition testimony submitted in support of the motion revealed theexistence of triable issues of fact as to whether the collision of the appellant's vehiclewith the rear of the vehicle operated by the defendant Arthur Adimolfi caused orcontributed to the alleged injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the subject multivehicle,chain-reaction accident (seeLeung v Bolton, 95 AD3d 836, 837 [2012]; Polanco-Espinal v City of New York, 84 AD3d 914[2011]; Omrami v Socrates, 227 AD2d 459 [1996]). Since the appellant failed tomeet his prima facie burden, his motion for summary judgment was properly deniedregardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New YorkUniv. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Brown v Demon Trucking, Inc., 104 AD3d 634 [2013]).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Lott andCohen, JJ., concur.