| Siewsankar v Chattoo |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 52177(U) [21 Misc 3d 133(A)] |
| Decided on October 31, 2008 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Denis
Butler, J.), entered August 17, 2007. The order denied a motion by defendants Davanand Chattoo
and Lawrence Chattoo for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.
Order affirmed without costs.
In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover for serious injuries allegedly sustained while he was a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by defendant Davanand Chattoo and owned by defendant Lawrence Chattoo, which was involved in an accident on April 8, 2003. The accident occurred when Davanand Chattoo was driving on 115th Street in Richmond Hill and defendant Ganess Persuad was pulling out of a parking space. Defendants Davanand Chattoo and Lawrence Chattoo moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them on the ground that they were not liable for the accident. Plaintiff and defendant Persuad opposed the motion, arguing that issues of fact exist as to Davanand Chattoo's negligence. The court below denied the motion for summary judgment. This appeal by Davanand Chattoo and Lawrence Chattoo ensued. [*2]
The Chattoo defendants failed to establish their
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as against them (see
Feldmus v Ryan Food Corp., 29 AD3d 940 [2006]; Glenn v Couvopoulo, 21 AD3d
526 [2005]). Although Davanand Chattoo had the right-of-way, the moving defendants failed to
demonstrate that no issue of fact exists as to whether Davanand Chattoo contributed to the
accident by failing to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances (see Rotondi v
Rao, 49 AD3d 520 [2008]; Cox v Nunez, 23 AD3d 427 [2005]). As a result, the
Chattoo defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants for summary judgment,
and we need not review the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Whack v
Williams, 53 AD3d 481 [2008]; Parnes v Mitzy Transp., 44 AD3d 918 [2007]).
Consequently, the order is affirmed.
Golia, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 31, 2008