| Williamson v Coleman |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00991 [114 AD3d 768] |
| February 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Nicole Williamson, Respondent, v AnthonyColeman et al., Respondents, and S.A. Williamson,Appellant. |
—[*1] Drabkin & Margulies, New York, N.Y. (Caitlin Robin of counsel), forplaintiff-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant S.A. Williamsonappeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered July19, 2013, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint andall cross claims insofar as asserted against him.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of thedefendant S.A. Williamson for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all crossclaims insofar as asserted against him is granted.
The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by the appellant whenit was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by the defendant Ronald Coleman andoperated by the defendant Anthony Coleman. The appellant moved for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him onthe ground that he was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident since hisvehicle was stopped on Guy Brewer Boulevard waiting to make a right turn onto BaisleyBoulevard as a pedestrian crossed Baisley Boulevard. The Supreme Court denied themotion.
Here, the appellant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw by demonstrating that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident throughthe submission of his affidavit in which he stated that his vehicle was struck in the rearby the Colemans' vehicle while his vehicle was stopped, waiting to make a right turn toallow a pedestrian to cross the street (see Moore v Singh, 108 AD3d 602, 603 [2013]; Hearn v Manzolillo, 103AD3d 689, 690 [2013]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue offact (see Robayo vAghaabdul, 109 AD3d 892 [2013]; Hearn v Manzolillo, 103 AD3d at691; Ramirez v Konstanzer,61 AD3d 837, 837-838 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should havegranted the appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and allcross claims insofar as asserted against him. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Hall and Roman, JJ.,concur.