Opinion
04-13-2017
Lina T. DURAN CARDONA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Ellen E. FIORENTINA, Defendant–Appellant.
Katz & Associates, Brooklyn (Arthur R. Simuro of counsel), for appellant. Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, for respondent.
Katz & Associates, Brooklyn (Arthur R. Simuro of counsel), for appellant.
Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RICHTER, MAZZARELLI, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about February 11, 2016, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that she had a green light in her favor before and after she entered the intersection, and that plaintiff made a left turn into the path of defendant's oncoming vehicle, causing the collision (see Abboud v. Pawelec, 141 A.D.3d 438, 33 N.Y.S.3d 901 [1st Dept.2016] ; Griffin v. Pennoyer, 49 A.D.3d 341, 852 N.Y.S.2d 765 [1st Dept.2008] ; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 ). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Despite having seen defendant's vehicle approaching when it was 6 to 7 car lengths from the intersection, plaintiff began her left turn in front of defendant's vehicle. It was allegedly not until plaintiff began her turn that she noticed that defendant's vehicle was traveling at a high rate of speed. Such speculative assertions do not warrant denial of the motion (see Guerrero v. Milla, 135 A.D.3d 635, 24 N.Y.S.3d 63 [1st Dept.2016] ; Cadeau v. Gregorio, 104 A.D.3d 464, 961 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1st Dept.2013] ).