Puccio v. Caputo
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lestingi v. Holland (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Derosario v. Gill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Derosario v. Gill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Shapiro v. Munoz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Klein v. Byalik (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Wilkins v. Davis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Gillinder v. Hemmes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Casanova v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated April 24, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants PSA, a division of Pepsico, Inc., and Juan Perez for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendants PSA, a division of Pepsico, Inc. (hereinafter PSA), and Juan Perez, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. PSA, the owner of a tractor trailer delivery truck, and Perez, the operator of the truck, established that the operator of the other vehicle, the defendant Lucille Caputo, was negligent as a matter of law by failing to stop at a stop sign and colliding with the side of the tractor trailer as it passed through the intersection (see, Hines v New York City Tr. Auth., 264 AD2d 506; Wolfson v Milillo, 262 AD2d 636). In opposition, the plaintiffs, who were passengers in the Caputo vehicle, failed to submit evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding whether Perez was in any way at fault in causing the accident (see, Perez v Brux Cab Corp., 251 AD2d 157; Namisnak v Martin, 244 AD2d 258). Goldstein, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.