Opinion
2016-05638, Index No. 3005/13.
11-08-2017
Sasona PANZER, appellant, v. MTA BUS COMPANY, et al., respondents.
Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, NY, for appellant. Marulli, Lindenbaum & Tomaszewski, LLP, New York, NY (John Tomaszewski and Lauren N. Ehrlich of counsel), for respondents.
Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, NY, for appellant.
Marulli, Lindenbaum & Tomaszewski, LLP, New York, NY (John Tomaszewski and Lauren N. Ehrlich of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite Nelson, J.), entered March 28, 2016, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On July 31, 2012, the plaintiff's vehicle and a bus owned by the defendant MTA Bus Company and operated by the defendant Paul Zanata collided on Queens Boulevard near its intersection with 70th Road in Queens. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the plaintiff attempted to merge into Zanata's lane of traffic without yielding the right-of-way, and that her conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Fuertes v. City of New York, 146 A.D.3d 936, 937, 45 N.Y.S.3d 562 ; Wolf v. Cruickshank, 144 A.D.3d 1144, 1145, 41 N.Y.S.3d 754 ; Nohs v. DiRaimondo, 140 A.D.3d 1132, 1134, 35 N.Y.S.3d 209 ; Luke v. McFadden, 119 A.D.3d 533, 534, 987 N.Y.S.2d 909 ; Amalfitano v. Rocco, 100 A.D.3d 939, 940, 954 N.Y.S.2d 644 ). It is immaterial that the plaintiff may have stopped at a stop sign before she attempted to merge, because she did not have the right-of-way when she proceeded (see Fuertes v. City of New York, 146 A.D.3d at 937, 45 N.Y.S.3d 562; Lara v. Faulisi, 142 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 39 N.Y.S.3d 172 ; Hatton v. Lara, 142 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 37 N.Y.S.3d 604 ; Crowe v. Hanley, 123 A.D.3d 755, 757, 999 N.Y.S.2d 84 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.