Preview:

Porretto v Curry 2013 NY Slip Op 30511(U) March 15, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 17981/2012 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[* 1]

SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK CIVIL TERM - IAS PART 34 - QUEENS COUNTY 25-10 COURT SQUARE, LONG ISLAND CITY, N.Y. 11101 P R E S E N T : HON. ROBERT J. MCDONALD Justice - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x MARIA PORRETTO, Plaintiff, - against MICHAEL CURRY and LORI DISTEFANO, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x The following papers numbered 1 to 12 were read on this motion by plaintiff, Maria Porretto, for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212(b) granting plaintiff partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and setting the matter down for a trial on damages: Papers Numbered Kong Notice of Motion......................................1 - 6 Abish Affirmation in Opposition............................7 - 9 Kong Reply Affirmation....................................10 - 12 In this action for negligence, the plaintiff, Maria Porretto, seeks to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 2, 2011, in which a vehicle owned by defendant, Lori Distefano, and operated by defendant Michael Curry, rear-ended a vehicle operated by the plaintiff. The four-vehicle accident took place on the northbound lanes of the belt near Exit 24 at 131st Street in Queens County, New York. Plaintiff alleges that she sustained injuries when her vehicle that was stopped in traffic, was struck in the rear by the vehicle operated by defendant Curry causing her vehicle to be propelled into the vehicle in front of it. Index No.: 17981/2012 Motion Date: 02/25/13 Motion No.: 82 Motion Seq.: 1

1

[* 2]

This action was commenced by the plaintiff by the filing of a summons and complaint on August 28, 2012. Issue was joined by service of defendant's verified answer on August 22, 2012. Plaintiff now moves, prior to the completion of discovery, for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), granting summary judgment on the issue of liability and setting this matter down for a trial on serious injury and damages. In support of the motion, the plaintiff submits an affirmation from counsel, Sameer Chopra, Esq; a copy of the pleadings; a copy of the plaintiff's verified bill of particulars; an affidavit of merit from the plaintiff Maria Porretto; photographs depicting damage to the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle; and a copy of the police accident report (MV-104). In her affidavit, dated January 7, 2013, plaintiff states that on July 14, 2012, she was the operator of a motor vehicle that had been involved in an accident at approximately 5:30 p.m. on the Belt Parkway at or near Exit 24 in Queens County. She states that she stopped her vehicle behind other vehicles ahead of her that had also come to a stop on the parkway due to traffic conditions. She stated that she was stopped for 5 - 10 seconds prior to her vehicle being hit in the rear by the vehicle operated by defendant Michael Curry. Ms. Porretto states that the impact was very hard and jerked her car forward causing her vehicle to impact the vehicle that was stopped in front of hers. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the accident she sustained serious injuries to her left shoulder, as well as her cervical and lumbar spine. The police accident report indicates that this was a four vehicle accident. The officer at the scene describes the accident based upon the statements of the drivers as follows: "At t/p/o Veh #1 (defendant) rear-ended vehicle #2 (plaintiff) causing vehicle #2 to strike vehicle #3(non-party). Vehicle # 3 rear-ended vehicle 4 (non-party). Operator Vehicle #1(defendant) states he tried to brake too late. All other operators state they were stopped in traffic in the left lane...Police Officer did not witness accident." The plaintiff contends that the defendant driver was negligent in the operation of his vehicle in striking the plaintiff's vehicle in the rear. Plaintiff's counsel contends that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the defendant driver in that his vehicle was traveling too closely in violation of VTL

Download 2013_30511.pdf

New York Law