| Fonteboa v Nugget Cab Corp. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08599 [123 AD3d 759] |
| December 10, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Jose Fonteboa, Plaintiff, v Nugget Cab Corp. etal., Respondents, and Charles Brucculeri et al., Appellants. |
Mendolia & Stenz (Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y.[Arthur R. Simuro and Donald S. Neumann, Jr.], of counsel), for appellants.
Phillip J. Rizzuto, P.C. (Marjorie E. Bornes, Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants CharlesBrucculeri and Catherine Brucculeri appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of anorder of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), dated December 20, 2013, asdenied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claimsinsofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costspayable by the defendants Nugget Cab Corp. and Aamir Butt, and the motion of thedefendants Charles Brucculeri and Catherine Brucculeri for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them isgranted.
This action arises out of a three-car, chain-reaction collision. The plaintiff, JoseFonteboa, was the driver of the lead car, which allegedly was stopped at a traffic light.The defendants Catherine Brucculeri and Charles Brucculeri (hereinafter together theBrucculeris) occupied the second vehicle, which was operated by Catherine Brucculeri.According to the deposition testimony of Catherine Brucculeri, she brought theBrucculeri vehicle to a full stop approximately 10 feet behind the plaintiff's vehicle. Thedefendants Nugget Cab Corp. and Aamir Butt (hereinafter together the Nuggetdefendants) are the owner and operator, respectively, of the third car, which, according toCatherine Brucculeri's deposition testimony, struck the Brucculeri vehicle in the rear,propelling it into the plaintiff's vehicle. The Brucculeris moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, and theSupreme Court denied their motion. The Brucculeris appeal.
The Brucculeris established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw by submitting evidence demonstrating that Catherine Brucculeri brought theBrucculeri vehicle safely to a stop behind the plaintiff's vehicle before the Brucculerivehicle was struck in the rear a few seconds later by the Nugget defendants' vehicle (see Raimondo v Plunkitt, 102AD3d 851, 852 [2013]; Hillv Ackall, 71 AD3d 829, 829-830 [2010]; Katz v Masada II Car & Limo Serv., Inc., 43 AD3d876, 876-877 [2007]). In opposition, the Nugget defendants failed to raise a triableissue of fact.
[*2] Accordingly, the SupremeCourt should have granted the Brucculeris' motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them (see Escobar vRodriguez, 243 AD2d 676, 676 [1997]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Barros, JJ.,concur.