From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Friedman v. Rogerson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sep 30, 2015
131 A.D.3d 1204 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

09-30-2015

Janine FRIEDMAN, respondent, v. Randi ROGERSON, et al., appellants.

Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. (Susan J. Mitola of counsel), for appellants. Lynn, Gartner, Dunne & Covello, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Joseph Covello and Kenneth L. Gartner of counsel), for respondent.


Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. (Susan J. Mitola of counsel), for appellants.

Lynn, Gartner, Dunne & Covello, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Joseph Covello and Kenneth L. Gartner of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered August 21, 2014, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she was struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant Randi Rogerson and operated by the defendant Richard Basso. The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by presenting proof that she was struck while walking within an unmarked crosswalk, that she had observed the conditions of approaching traffic before she began to cross, and that the defendant driver was negligent in failing to yield the right-of-way (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1151, 1152[a] ; France Herly Bien–Aime v. Clare, 124 A.D.3d 814, 814, 2 N.Y.S.3d 557 ; Garcia v. Lenox Hill Florist III, Inc., 120 A.D.3d 1296, 1297, 993 N.Y.S.2d 86 ; Hamilton v. King Tung Kong, 93 A.D.3d 821, 940 N.Y.S.2d 901 ; Rosenblatt v. Venizelos, 49 A.D.3d 519, 853 N.Y.S.2d 578 ). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Garcia v. Lenox Hill Florist III, Inc., 120 A.D.3d at 1297, 993 N.Y.S.2d 86 ; Rosenblatt v. Venizelos, 49 A.D.3d 519, 853 N.Y.S.2d 578 ). Since the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Friedman v. Rogerson

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sep 30, 2015
131 A.D.3d 1204 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Friedman v. Rogerson

Case Details

Full title:Janine FRIEDMAN, respondent, v. Randi ROGERSON, et al., appellants.

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

Date published: Sep 30, 2015

Citations

131 A.D.3d 1204 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7006
16 N.Y.S.3d 770

Citing Cases

Lu Yan Li v. Yong Hua Zhen

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement…

Gandarillas v. EAN Holdings, LLC

We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to…