Opinion
Index EF005349-2018
11-02-2018
JOHN ANTONELLI, JR., Plaintiff, v. PETER J. LORITZ, Defendants
Unpublished Opinion
Motion Date: October 31, 2018
To commence the statutory time period for appeals as of right (CFLR55B[a]), you are advised to serve a copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon all parties.
Catherine M. Bartlett, Judge
The following papers numbered 1 to 3 were read on Plaintiff's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability: Notice of Motion- Affirmation /Exhibits -Affidavit ...............................1-3
Upon the foregoing papers it is ORDERED that the motion is disposed of as follows:
This is a personal injury action stemming from a two-car accident which occurred on November 8, 2017 on Tuckers Corners Road in the Town of Plattekill, New York, Plaintiff John Antonelli, Jr. was operating a vehicle traveling westbound on Tuckers Comers Road. Defendant Peter J. Loritz was operating a vehicle traveling eastbound when he crossed over a double yellow line into the westbound lane of traffic and collided with Plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff now moves for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
By violating Vehicle and Traffic Law §1120(a), winch provides that "vehicle[s] shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway," Mr. Loritz was negligent per se unless justified by an emergency situation not of the driver's own mating. See, Faster v. Sanchez, 17 A.D.3d 312, 313 (2d Dept 2005); Marshaw v. Dealer Stor. Carp., 8 A.D.3d 451, 452 (2d Dept 2004); Gadon v. Oliva, 294 A.D.2d 397, 397-39S (2d Dept 2002). See also, Cqffery v. BJY Materials, Inc., 11 A.D.3d 649 (2d Dept. 2004); Arrowitz v. Arrowitz, 279 A.D.2d 440 (2d Dept 2001). Moreover, "[a] driver is not obligated to anticipate that a vehicle traveling in the opposite.. direction will cross over into 1he oncoming lane of traffic." Marsch v. Catanzaro, 40 A.D.3d 941, 942 (2d Dept 2007).
Thus, Plaintiff established ids prima fade entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that Defendant crossed over a double yellow line into the opposing lane of traffic, thereby causing the collision. See, Snemyr v. Morales-Aparicio, 47 A.D.3d 702 (2d Dept 2008); Marsicano v. Dealer Star. Corp., supra, 8 A.D.3d at 452; Browne v. Castillo, 288 A.D.2d 415 (2d Dept 2001). Defendant, having failed to come forward with any normegligent explanation for the collision, has failed to rebut the inference of negligence arising from bis crossing over into Plaintiff's lane of travel. See, Cqffery v. BJY Materials, Inc., supra; Arrowitz v. Arrowitz, supra. Moreover, since Defendant also failed to adduce any evidence of negligence on Plaintiffs part, the Court concludes as a matter of law that Defendant's negligence In crossing over into Plaintiffs lane of travel was the sole proximate cause of accident. See, Marsch v. Catanzaro, supra; Cqffery v. BJY Materials, Inc., supra.
It is therefore
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant Peter J. Loritz's liability far the; subject motor vehicle accident is granted.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.