New York Court of Appeals, 2006

Gerrity v. Muthana

New York Court of Appeals · Decided September 19, 2006

7 N.Y.3d 834; 857 N.E.2d 527

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

HAIN, ANDREW J. v. JAMISON, ANGELA J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Gaskill v. Sharpe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Charles v. Bagels by Bell, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Salahuddin v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 2021)
De'L. A. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Hain v. Jamison (N.Y. 2016)
Pagan v. Ouattara (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Pagan v. Ouattara (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Montalvo v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Montalvo v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kantor v. Met Transport Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Anton v. West Manor Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Anton v. West Manor Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Vazquez v. Roldan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Doubrovinskaya v. Dembitzer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Dauber v. Ken Lamont Stone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Fermaglich v. Arnone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Gerdvil v. Tarnowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Even assuming that the location of the bus owned by defendant Leprechaun Lines, Inc. in the traffic lane at the time of the accident resulted, in some respect, from negligence on the part of Leprechaun, the City of Buffalo or the County of Erie/ *836Erie Community College as plaintiffs allege, these defendants were nonetheless entitled to summary judgment because they established, as a matter of law, that the alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries (see Sheehan v City of New York, 40 NY2d 496, 503 [1976]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.