Sanchez v. Efficiency Enters., Inc.

Full text

Sanchez v Efficiency Enters., Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 34620(U) November 14, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 506214/2024 Judge: Francois A. Rivera Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2024 12:45 PM INDEX NO. 506214/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2024

At an IAS Tenn, Part 52 of the Supreme Court of the State ofNew York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 14th day of November 2024

HONORABLE FRANCOIS A. RIVERA ----------------------------· ·--·-------------------------------- -X JAYL YN ALEXANDRA SANCHEZ, DECISION & ORDER

Plaintiff, Index No.: 506214/2024

- against - Oral Argument: 9/12/2024

EFFICIENCY ENTERPRISES, INC., EMPIRE MERCHA TS, Cal. No.: 47 and CARMINE MASI Defendants. Ms. No.: 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- -X

Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) o the papers considered on the notice of motion filed on June 4, 2024, under motions quence number one, by Jaylyn Alexandra Sanchez (hereinafter plaintiff or movant) fo an order granting plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability against E ciency Enterprises, Inc •., Empress Merchants 1, and Carmine Masi (hereinafter collectivel the defendants) and striking defendants' affirmative defenses from these defendant ' answer as they apply to plaintiff's alleged comparative fault. The motion is op osed.

-Notice of motion -Affirmation in support Exhibits 1-6 -Statement of material facts -Affirmation in opposition Exhibits A-B -Counter Statement of material facts -Affirmation in reply Exhibit 1 I 1 The notice of motion incorrectly named defendant Empire Merchants las Empress Merchants. The affrrmation of plaintiff' counsel incorrectly named Empire Merchants as :Empiree Me Ichants. The error is disregarded pursuantto CPLR2001.

Pagel of⁵

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2024 12:45 PM INDEX NO. 506214/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2024

I I pleadings constitute formal judicial admissions" (Zega~owicz v Ripatti, 77 AD3d 650, I 653 [2d Dept 2010], citing Falkowski v 81 & 3 of Watertown., 288 AD2d 890, 891 [4th I Dept 2001 ]). "Formal judicial admissions are conclusive of the facts admitted in the I

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2024 12:45 PM INDEX NO. 506214/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2024

Footnotes

[1] of 5 [* 1] BACKGROUND On March 1, 2024, the plaintiff commenced thi action by filing a summons and verified complaint with the Kings County Clerk's offic (KCCO). On March 26, 2024, the defendants interposed and filed a joint verified ,ans er with the KCCO. Plaintiffs verified complaint and affidavit alleg the following salient facts. On December 4, 2023, at approximately 1:30 p.m., plainti f was driving in the left lane eastbound on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in Br oklyn, New York in a 2013 Ford Edge bearing New York license plate number JPY561 At the same time, date, and place, defendant C ine Masi was operating a 2018 International tractor-trailer bearing New York license late number 60252PC (hereinafter the adverse vehicle) within the course of his employm nt with defendant Empire Merchants, LLC. The adverse vehicle was owned by efendant Efficiency Enterprise, Inc. At that time, place, and date, the front ofthe adv rse vehicle struck the rear of plaintiffs vehicle seriously injuring the plaintiff. LAW AND APPLICATION A plaintiff moving for summary judgment on t e issue of liability in ,a negligence action "must establish, prima facie, that the defendant reached a duty owed to the plaintiff' artd the defendant's negligent actions were a 'proximate cause of the alleged injuries" (Hall v Powell, 183 AD3d 576, 577 [2d Dept 2020]). "A rear-end collision 1 I establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, I thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non- Page 2 of5 I

[2] of 5 [* 2] negligent explanation for the collision" (Witonsky vNe York City Tr; Auth., 145 AD3d 938,939 [2d Dept 2016], quoting Scheker v Brown, 85 3d 1007, 1007 [2d Dept 2011]); Hall v Powell, 183 AD3d 576, 577 [2d Dept 20 0]; Tsyganash v Auto Mall Fleet Mgt., Inc., 163 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2d Dept 2018]). "A motion for summary judgment shall be supp rted by an affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as, de ositions and written admissions" (Poon v Nisanov, 162 AD3d 804, 806 [2d Dept 2018], iting CPLR 3212 [b]); Marriot v Jackson, 67 Misc 3d 1211(A) [Sup Ct, Kings County 2 20]). In support of her motion, the plaintiff submitted among other things, her own affidavit, and a copy ofa certified police accident repo .. "A driver ofa vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required t maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditi ns to avoid colliding with the other vehicle" (Witonsky, 145 AD3d 938 at 939; citing siah-Ababio v Hunter, 78 AD3d 672,672 [2d Dept 2010]; Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1 29 [a]). Here, the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff, thus causing the ubject accident. The plaintiff also established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a m tter of law dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense alleging comparative Jegligence against the plaintiff by demonstrating that she was not at fault in the happenin of the accident (Quintanilla v Mark, 210 AD3d 713, 714 [2d Dept 2018]). The defendants admitted in their joint verified apswer that Efficiency Enterprises, I Inc. owned the adverse vehicle and that Carmine Masi !was driving the adverse vehicle I within the scope of his employment with Empire Mercrants. ''Facts admitted by a party's Page 3 of5 I I

[3] of 5 [* 3] I action in which they are made" (Zegarowicz, 77 AD3dlat 653, citing Coffin v Grand Rapids Hydraulic Co., 136 NY 655 [1893]. I Defendants also contended that the plaintiffs mbtion was premature because no I I party had yet been deposed. "A party who contends thht a summary judgment motion is I I premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or the I I facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were ~xclusively within the knowledge I I and control of the movant" (Kagan v Ameriprise Fin. S,ervs, Inc., 191 AD3d 654, 656 [2d I Dept 2021], quoting Cajas-Romero v Ward, 106 AD3~ 850, 852 [2d Dept 2013]). "The I mere hope or speculation that evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny a motion for summary I judgment" (Paul v Village of Quogue, 178 AD3d 942, ~44 [2d Dept 2019]). Further, I defendants have failed to establish how further discov~ry may lead to the disclosure of I i facts material and necessary to properly oppose plaintiffs motion (see Adler v Oxford I Health Plans (NY), Inc., -NYS3d-, 2024 NY Slip Op! 05585 [2d Dept 2024]. In sum, I plaintiff met her prima facie burden demonstrating tha( the defendants violated Vehicle I and Traffic Law§ 1129 (a) thus shifting the burden to rhe defendants to offer a non- negligent explanation for the subject accident. The de endants did not do so. Page 4 of 5

[4] of 5 [* 4] CONCLUSION i i The branch of the motion by plaintiff Jaylyn Ale~andra Sanchez for an order I granting plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability against defendants I I Efficiency Enterprises, Inc., Empress Merchants, and Oarmine Masi is granted. I i The branch of the motion by plaintiff Jaylyn Aleiandra Sanchez for an order I I striking defendants' affirmative defenses as they apply ~o plaintiffs alleged comparative I fault is granted. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of thisl Court. I ENTER: i J.S.C. ' HQN. FRANCOIS A. RIVERA i Page 5 of 5

[5] of 5 [* 5]