Cascante v. Kakay
Opinion of the Court
In opposition, Kakay failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although plaintiff’s testimony is somewhat unclear as to whether Mohammed’s vehicle was traveling northbound and parallel to Kakay’s vehicle, or whether it was heading westbound when it entered the intersection where the accident occurred, such testimony does not contradict the evidence establishing that Kakay was negligent and the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Zummo v Holmes, 57 AD3d 366 [2008]; see also Rivera v Corbett, 69 AD3d 916 [2010]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.