From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Connor v. Lopane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 2005
24 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Summary

affirming summary judgment for defendant, where plaintiff drove vehicle across double yellow line in attempt to pass defendant's truck, and plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence of defendant's comparative negligence

Summary of this case from Vaselli v. United States

Opinion

2004-09833.

December 5, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), entered September 22, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendants Anthony N. Lopane and Anthony Lopane Enterprises, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Before: Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's vehicle collided with a construction truck owned by the defendant Anthony Lopane Enterprises, Inc., as the truck made a left turn from Mamaroneck Road onto Sheldrake Road. The defendants Anthony N. Lopane and Anthony Lopane Enterprises, Inc., made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law based on the deposition testimony of the parties that the accident occurred when the plaintiff drove her vehicle across a double yellow line and then proceeded east in the westbound lane of Mamaroneck Road in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 (a) in an attempt to pass the respondents' truck ( see Foster v. Sanchez, 17 AD3d 312; Marsicano v. Dealer Stor. Corp., 8 AD3d 451; Gadon v. Oliva, 294 AD2d 397). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the respondents' comparative negligence. Instead, the plaintiff merely alleged, unsupported by any evidence, that the driver of the respondents' truck could have taken some unspecified action to avoid the accident or somehow contributed to its cause ( see Eichenwald v. Chaudhry, 17 AD3d 403; Stoebe v. Norton, 278 AD2d 484). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident and awarded summary judgment to the defendants.


Summaries of

O'Connor v. Lopane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 2005
24 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

affirming summary judgment for defendant, where plaintiff drove vehicle across double yellow line in attempt to pass defendant's truck, and plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence of defendant's comparative negligence

Summary of this case from Vaselli v. United States
Case details for

O'Connor v. Lopane

Case Details

Full title:JEANNE M. O'CONNOR, Appellant, v. ANTHONY N. LOPANE et al., Respondents…

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

Date published: Dec 5, 2005

Citations

24 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
805 N.Y.S.2d 125

Citing Cases

Ruthinoski v. Brinkman

The defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Although the…

Vaselli v. United States

Instead, plaintiff crossed the double yellow line simply because he was trying to pass O'Neill's truck as…