Matthew Landin v William J. Clifford, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury—motor vehicle negligence (pedestrian struck) and summary judgment on proximate cause
The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s own negligence in attempting to cross the roadway was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
The order granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing the complaint.
Defendants’ own submissions included conflicting deposition accounts of how the collision occurred, creating triable issues of fact and failing to establish, prima facie, that the driver was free from fault; there can be more than one proximate cause, and credibility issues are for the jury.
Background
Plaintiff alleged he was struck on Veterans Memorial Highway in Bohemia by a vehicle owned by Siemens Corporation and operated by William J. Clifford. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff attempted to cross when it was unsafe and was solely responsible for the accident.
Lower Court Decision
By order dated April 29, 2024, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, accepting defendants’ position that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the law, with costs. The Appellate Division held defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden because the parties’ deposition testimonies conflicted on how the accident occurred, creating issues of fact and credibility that preclude summary judgment. The motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition.
Legal Significance
In New York negligence cases, a defendant seeking summary judgment must establish prima facie freedom from fault. When the movant’s proof reveals conflicting evidence or credibility questions about how the accident occurred, summary judgment is improper because multiple proximate causes may exist and factual disputes must be resolved by the trier of fact.
Conflicting deposition testimony about an auto-pedestrian collision prevents defendants from obtaining summary judgment; they must first show the driver was not at fault, and issues of proximate cause and credibility are for the jury.