You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S...

DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should have been granted to defendant Brady in this bicycle-car collision case. Brady was parked parallel to Dunbar waiting for Dunbar to pull out of a parking space. Plaintiff rode her bicycle between the two cars and struck the door of the Dunbar car when Dunbar opened it to speak to Brady. Brady’s car was deemed not to be a proximate cause of the accident, rather the position of Brady’s car merely furnished the condition for the accident. Dunbar’s motion for summary judgment, however was properly denied:

The Supreme Court should have granted Brady’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the second supplemental complaint insofar as asserted against him. Although the issue of proximate cause is generally one for the jury … , “liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event’ but was not one of its causes” … . Here, in support of his motion, Brady demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that his conduct in stopping his car while waiting for a parking space merely furnished the condition or occasion for the accident, and was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … .

… Dunbar failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Dunbar was negligent in opening the door when it was not reasonably safe to do so, and in allegedly failing to see what, by the reasonable use of his senses, he should have seen … . Price v Tasber, 2016 NY Slip Op 08385, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE)/PROXIMATE CAUSEEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE)/ BICYCLES (DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE)/CONDITION FOR ACCIDENT (DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (LEVEL TWO TO ONE) IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH NONPARTY JP MORGAN DID NOT APPEAR IN THE UNDERLYING FORECLOSURE, IT COULD RECOVER SURPLUS FUNDS BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT ON A CREDIT-LINE LOAN SECURED BY THE PROPERTY; JP MORGAN’S ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CREDIT-LINE DEBT WAS NEVER UNEQUIVOCALLY ACCELERATED (SECOND DEPT).
Hearing Required to Determine Whether Plaintiff Bank Negotiated in Good Faith During the Settlement Conference
THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE BANK (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MURDER SECOND COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; FORMER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION OF HIS CHILD WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE HE FAILED TO SUPPORT THE CHILD DESPITE THE MEANS TO DO SO (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, WHO ARE NOT POLICE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS POLICES OFFICERS, AND THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED BY BOTH POLICE OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; NEITHER THE SEARCH WARRANT NOR THE SEARCH WAS THEREBY RENDERED INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WHEEL STOP OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS. DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S...