From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clarke v. Condon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 2008
52 A.D.3d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-08433.

June 24, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated August 23, 2007, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Finkelstein Partners, Newburgh, N.Y. (Kristine M. Cahill of counsel), for appellants.

James R. McCarl, Montgomery, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Miller and Dillon, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence showing that a vehicle driven by the defendant Joseph Condon and owned by the defendant Thomas Condon, Jr., crossed a double yellow line in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 (a) and struck an oncoming vehicle driven by the plaintiff Joseph Clarke ( see CPLR 3212). However, a violation of that statute may be excused if it is established that the driver exercised reasonable care in an effort to comply with it ( see Aranzullo v Seidell, 96 AD2d 1048, 1049). Here, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver exercised reasonable care under the circumstances ( see Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 NY2d 132; Espinal v Sureau, 262 AD2d 523, 524).


Summaries of

Clarke v. Condon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 2008
52 A.D.3d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Clarke v. Condon

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH CLARKE et al., Appellants, v. THOMAS CONDON, JR., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 24, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5875
862 N.Y.S.2d 65

Citing Cases

Adames v. U.S.

See, e.g., Lombard v. Booz-Allen Hamilton, Inc., 280 F.3d 209, 215 (2d Cir. 2002). New York follows the…

Sanchez v. United States

Further, even if this fact were established beyond genuine dispute, "a violation of [§ 1126(a)] may be…