Usoiani v. Dumbo Moving & Stor., Inc.

Usoiani, 2025 NY Slip Op 04810 (Appellate Division Second Judicial Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · August 27, 2025 · No. Index No. 507010/17

Summary

This Appellate Division decision reviews an order and judgment granting summary judgment in a personal injury action stemming from a motor vehicle accident. The court addresses the appellants' appeals from portions of the lower court's rulings, dismissing them on procedural grounds because the right to direct appeal had already terminated upon the entry of subsequent judgments. On the merits, the court affirms the dismissal of claims against defendant Ronald Matoyan, finding that the remaining defendants violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1211(a) by negligently backing a truck into his stopped vehicle, establishing negligence per se and sole proximate cause without any triable issue of fact.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Barros, J.P.; Dowling, J.; Ventura, J.; McCormack, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
August 27, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 507010/17
Procedural posture
Appeal from a Supreme Court, Kings County order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross‑claims against Roland Matoyan and from the judgment affirming that dismissal; also appeal from the cross‑motion granting summary judgment against Dumbo Moving & Storage, Inc. and Shalva Kunelauri.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Dumbo Moving & Storage, Inc., Shalva Kunelauri v. Paata Usoiani et al.
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

negligencestandard of caresummary judgmentappellate procedurepersonal injury

Practice areas

tortscivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appeal from the order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Roland Matoyan is proper
  2. Whether the appeal from the cross‑motion granting summary judgment against Dumbo Moving & Storage, Inc. and Shalva Kunelauri is proper
  3. Whether the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing cross‑claims against Matoyan

Holdings

  1. The appeal is dismissed because the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of the judgment dated June 9, 2020.
  2. The appeal is dismissed because the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of two judgments dated January 13, 2022.
  3. The Supreme Court did not err; the summary judgment dismissing cross‑claims against Matoyan is affirmed.

Key quotations

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1211(a) provides that the driver of a vehicle shall not back the same unless such movement can be made with safety and without interfering with other traffic.
The Supreme Court did not err in granting that branch of Matoyan's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing all cross‑claims insofar as asserted against him.

Factual background

The plaintiffs, passengers in Roland Matoyan’s vehicle, were injured when a box truck owned by Dumbo Moving & Storage, Inc. and driven by employee Shalva Kunelauri backed into the front of Matoyan’s stopped vehicle.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, Kings County granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross‑claims against Matoyan and granted the plaintiffs’ cross‑motion for summary judgment on liability against Dumbo and Kunelauri. The judgment was entered on June 9, 2020. The appellants appealed the order and the judgment to the Appellate Division, Second Department.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…