You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE...
,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE WAS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET BEEN DEPOSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case was premature because plaintiff had not been deposed:

Plaintiff alleges that after crossing Pearl Street at the intersection with Whitehall Street he was struck from behind by defendants’ box truck, while he was on the curb/lip of the sidewalk. According to the affidavit of the driver, defendant Rosado, plaintiff was distracted by talking on a cell phone, and walked into the side of the truck while it was already making a right turn.

While plaintiff was not required to demonstrate the absence of comparative negligence on his part, his motion was premature in that defendants did not have the opportunity to depose him … . Bey v Rosado, 2021 NY Slip Op 01840, First Dept 3-25-21

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE TAILGATE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Tortious Interference with Contract and Unfair Competition Causes of Action Proven–Elements Explained—Punitive Damages Not Warranted–Purpose Explained
Supreme Court Case Relied Upon to Vacate Convictions by Guilty Plea Where Defendant Not Informed of Possibility of Deportation Can Not Be Applied Retroactively
New York City’s Decision Not to Apply Increased Take Home Pay Benefit to Police Officers and Firefighters Struck Down
Attorney’s Defamation Suit Against Client Based Upon Letters Sent to the Attorney by the Client Dismissed
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, HE HAD BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN 120 CASES; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISQUALIFIED HIM (FIRST DEPT).
TWO TO THREE FOOT FALL OF HEAVY STEEL PLATE WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST 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

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT ACCOUNTANT DEPARTED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL... THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AFTER SERVICE OF A WARRANT...