Domanova v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Lazo v. Nunez-Romero

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33925 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    Defendant's failure to see plaintiff before the collision does not provide an evidentiary basis from which to infer that she was not there to be seen; "[u]nder the circumstances, the fact that the driver never saw the [plaintiff] does not excuse his conduct" (Domanova v State of NewYork, 41 AD3d 633, 634 [2d Dept 2007]). In the absence of any affirmative proof that plaintiff was not present on the roadway prior to the moment of impact, there is no issue of fact as to whether defendant breached an obligation to notice, and yield to, the pedestrian plaintiff.

  2. Agui v. Fernandez

    35 Misc. 3d 1244 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    Therefore, the jury's verdict on liability in the instant actions is clearly against the weight of the evidence and is vacated. The Court, in Barbieri v. Vokoun (72 AD3d 853, 856 [2d Dept 2010] ), instructed:The defendant has a statutory duty to use due care to avoid colliding with pedestrians on the roadway ( seeVehicle and Traffic Law § 1146), as well as a common-law duty to see that which he should have seen through the proper use of his senses ( see Domanova v. State of New York, 41 AD3d 633, 634 [2d Dept 2006]; Larsen v. Spano, 35 AD3d 820 [2d Dept 2006] ) ... Under these circumstances, the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence. Discussion