| Butler v Petrova |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02695 [116 AD3d 580] |
| April 17, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Catherine A. Butler et al., Respondents, v IskraPetrova et al., Defendants, and Kim S. Cottrell et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1]
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered September 23,2013, which denied the motion of defendants Kim S. Cottrell and Frank Elam forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, onthe law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgmentaccordingly.
In this three-car chain collision, defendants Cottrell and Elam established entitlementto judgment as a matter of law. Cottrell submitted an affidavit wherein she stated that thevehicle she was driving was stopped behind plaintiffs' vehicle at a red light when a thirdvehicle, operated by defendant Iskra Petrova and owned by defendant Peter K. Petrova,rear-ended her vehicle, causing it to move forward and collide into the rear of plaintiffs'vehicle (see Cabrera vRodriguez, 72 AD3d 553 [1st Dept 2010]; Rue v Stokes, 191 AD2d 245[1st Dept 1993]).
In opposition, neither plaintiffs nor the Petrova defendants raised a triable issue offact. Indeed, plaintiff Catherine Butler submitted an affidavit wherein she detailed theaccident in a manner that was consistent with Cottrell's version. Furthermore, denial ofthe motion as premature was improper since "[t]he mere hope that evidence sufficient todefeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process isinsufficient to deny such a motion" (Flores v City of New York, 66 AD3d 599, 600 [1st Dept2009]). Concur—Renwick, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels andFeinman, JJ.