From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abatzidis v. Fenton

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 16, 2014
116 A.D.3d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-04-16

Ilyse ABATZIDIS, et al., appellants, v. Maxwell FENTON, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

Charles Bonfante III (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Michael H. Zhu], of counsel), for appellants. Cruser, Mitchell & Novitz, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Beth S. Gereg of counsel), for respondents.


Charles Bonfante III (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Michael H. Zhu], of counsel), for appellants. Cruser, Mitchell & Novitz, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Beth S. Gereg of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated February 1, 2012, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Maxwell Fenton and Paradigm Transportation Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

The defendants Maxwell Fenton and Paradigm Transportation Corp. established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that the defendant Reyes Cristobal's violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143, by failing to yield the right-of-way, was the sole proximate cause of the subject collision ( see Recinos v. Priamo, 94 A.D.3d 848, 941 N.Y.S.2d 518;Strocchia v. City of New York, 70 A.D.3d 926, 927, 894 N.Y.S.2d 531;Ferrara v. Castro, 283 A.D.2d 392, 724 N.Y.S.2d 81). In opposition thereto, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572).

The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Maxwell Fenton and Paradigm Transportation Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. RIVERA, J.P., LOTT, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Abatzidis v. Fenton

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 16, 2014
116 A.D.3d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Abatzidis v. Fenton

Case Details

Full title:Ilyse ABATZIDIS, et al., appellants, v. Maxwell FENTON, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 16, 2014

Citations

116 A.D.3d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
116 A.D.3d 802
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2552

Citing Cases

Ricciardi v. Nelson

ight-of-way also has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision, it has been recognized that a driver…

Marcel v. Sanders

"Although a driver with a right-of-way also has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision, . . . a…